Joshua Carey

Tax

Joshua has spent considerable time working for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in the VAT Litigation Team. Joshua has gained experience appearing in the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) on a variety of issues and was the lead lawyer for HMRC in London in respect of a significant number of Missing Trader Intra-Community Tax (MTIC) cases. Cumulatively, Joshua has defended in excess of £500 million worth of VAT in litigation on behalf of HMRC.

Joshua had conduct of HMRC -v- Fairford Group and Anor [2014] UKUT 329 (TCC) in the Upper Tribunal which has irreversibly changed the litigation landscape in respect of MTIC Litigation and to which the Tribunal now colloquially refer to directions which flow from the decision as the “Fairford direction”.  This decision is now regularly relied upon in Chambers of the First-tier Tribunal, other than the Tax Chamber.

He is also very experienced in matters involving the use of Sch 36 Finance Act 2008 powers by Revenue and Customs officers as well as issues involving HMRC’s use of Sch 24 Finance Act 2007 penalties and s63 Value Added Tax Act 1994 misdeclaration penalties.

Joshua has been instructed by both HMRC and taxpayers alike across a broad spectrum of indirect tax matters. This includes advising on and litigating AWRS and WOWGR refusal decisions, as well as excise assessments subject to “B&M” considerations. Recently he has received instructions in VAT deregistration appeals following his victory in the Administrative Court where he successfully resisted permission to appeal.

Alongside this he has been instructed on VAT litigation matters ranging from traditional MTIC litigation to no supply and insufficient evidence of supply cases, as well as place of supply cases.

Furthermore, he has been involved in litigation in the Court of Appeal in the matters of Fonecomp Limited v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2015] EWCA Civ 39 and The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Davis and Dann and Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 142. He achieved successful outcomes in both of these cases.

Recent Cases:

• AA -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2018] (unrep) which was a case involving tobacco that was being held by the taxpayer without duty having been paid. The tribunal found that it could not go behind the condemnation proceedings which were not challenged and that there was no reasonable excuse when judging what the Appellant did against the reasonable taxpayer in the position of the Appellant.
• Christine Perrin -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2018] UKUT 0128 (TCC) This case marks the first opportunity the Upper Tribunal has had to consider the test for “reasonable excuse”. It is the now the leading authority applied by the First-tier Tribunal when considering whether what the taxpayer did was objectively reasonable when compared against what a reasonable taxpayer would have done.
• Elbrook (Cash and Carry) Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2017] UKFTT 650 (TC)
• R (On the Application of Thames Wines Limited) -v- HM Revenue and Customs [2017] EWHC 452 (Admin) which was a case about whether HMRC could deregister a taxable person in the absence of domestic authority
• Unicorn Shipping Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2017] UKFTT 464 (TC) which was a case in which the Commissioners sought, and were granted, further and better particulars;
• JTC Environment Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2017] UKFTT 155 (TC) which was a case in which the Commissioners were, and did, successfully resist permission to appeal being granted out of time;
• CF Booth Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2016] 261 (TC) which was a case about the appropriateness of “Fairford Directions” being applied to the case;
• CF Booth Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2015] UKFTT 407 (TC) which was a case about whether it was appropriate to consolidate two appeals together; and
• Foneshops Limited -v- The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2015] UKFTT 410 (TC) which was a case about whether it was an abuse to relitigate an issue that ought to have been run in earlier proceedings.