lehira
31 Mar 2015
Re: 3 RNS well after close I agree and I am now still stuck with rather a lot of em!
JakNife
31 Mar 2015
Re: 3 RNS well after close How appropriate that it will return on April Fool's day!
lehira
31 Mar 2015
3 RNS well after close Looks like trading will resume tomorrow
lehira
31 Mar 2015
Re: Is there a time limit? Nothing today so is this curtains for Tricor?
ChrisC
27 Mar 2015
Can I have all of my money back please
SugaToyBoyDaddy
25 Mar 2015
Re: Update re. Results and Trading Updat... Heres a new one. Fraudulent VAT rebate evasion.HMRC knowingly profited by accepting vat payments from honest trading companies with prior knowledge that the manufacturer was not inside their jurisdiction,thus proving their intent to defraud the other three parties involved in the chain of their right to claim a VAT rebate.Wouldn't that be funny,HEHEHE:-P
clockwurktangerine
24 Mar 2015
Re: Update re. Results and Trading Updat... Apols for delay in saying many thanks for your explanations and general info. Hopefully results very soon....
SugaToyBoyDaddy
24 Mar 2015
Re: Update re. Results and Trading Updat... These MTIC cases are quite interesting when you think about it.For example-If there where 4 companies in the chain link,1st the manufacturer (A)then the 1st buyer direct from the manufacturer (B),then Tricor(C),then the consumer(D)The consumer(D) buys from Tricor and pays VAT to Tricor, Tricor(C) buys from company(B) and pays VAT. company (B) buys from the manufacturer and pays VAT.then the only company that has not paid in the VAT that they have collected from the 1st buyer(B) would be the manufacturer. who must also be the missing trader and the tax evader in the fraudulent case.So why is the manufacturer the missing trader that didn't pay the vat to HMRC in the first instance,thus rejecting any rebate to other parties involve in the chain.Could it be that the manufacturer is from another country outside the EU and outside HMRC's jurisdiction. if this is the case,then the onus should be on HMRC to fix this problem before they are able to charge people/companies VAT when they are trading with companies outside of their control.I think that the first company in the chain (B) ,who first receives the imported product should be deemed the first link in the chain for VAT purposes, thus excluding the missing trader from the equation.That way everyone after that should be able to claim back what is rightfully theirs at the end of the tax year.Instead of arguing that each company in the chain should have known that company (A)the manufacturer would no be legally bound to pay VAT.If HMRC and the governments did their jobs properly to sort this out by either making agreements over jurisdiction or banning imports from such places,then British companies etc would not have to rinse share holders in order to fight their case.and save tax payers money from the huge costs involved.Surely HMRC have to prove that Tricor did this trade with the intent to defraud,rather than proving that they knew the manufacturer would not pay the VAT.like wise if HMRC knew that there was a missing trader involved outside their jurisdiction,then why did they charge VAT to others in the chain,when they had no intention of giving them a rebate at the end of the tax year.Does that mean that fraudulent behaviour can swing both ways? Lol :-P
Innsightful
24 Mar 2015
Re: Is there a time limit? We're talking about publishing the interim accounts for 31 March 2014, which they must do within six months. For numerous reasons they said they couldnt do this and hence suspension on 30 September 2014. Since then loads of promises and deadlines missed.There is a further time limit and they had six months to publish results or face delisting. The cut off is 31 March 2015. Expect some news rather soon.
lehira
23 Mar 2015
Is there a time limit? Is there a time limit for posting these results before action could be taken against this company? I have no knowledge of anything of this sort so am asking here.
SugaToyBoyDaddy
22 Mar 2015
Re: Update re. Results and Trading Updat... Heres one winner this year.Source: Tribunal | | 12/02/2015Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) fraud focuses on the sales of mobile phones and computer software. MTIC fraud also known as 'carousel fraud' usually involves the small high value goods such as computer chips or mobile phones which are imported free of VAT from other EU member states. The goods are then sold in the UK for an amount including VAT but the fraudulent business never pays the VAT due to HMRC.In a recent Tribunal case a company, Pacific Computers Limited (PCL), appealed against HMRC’s refusal to make a repayment of input tax of over £428k (for the VAT period 09/06). HMRC refused the repayment stating that they were satisfied that the transactions formed part of an overall scheme to defraud the Revenue and that the taxpayer knew or should have known of this.The Tribunal asked the parties to the case to make their closing submissions in writing. The taxpayer’s closing submissions were submitted on time and were concise and to the point. HMRC, however, took six weeks to reply and produced a closing submission much of which we are told was of no assistance to the Tribunal. HMRC then went on to make further submissions much to the chagrin of the Tribunal.Both parties agreed that MTIC fraud had taken place. The issue at hand was whether the directors of PCL knew or ought to have known on that the transactions in which the company were involved were connected with fraud. The Tribunal found the evidence from the taxpayer’s witnesses to be honest and reliable.In reaching a decision the Tribunal Judge was critical of HMRC and stated that HMRC has failed to show either, ...'actual knowledge of or involvement in fraud by PCL or that PCL had the means of knowledge or ought to have known that the only reasonable explanation of PCL's involvement in the transactions was fraud.' The taxpayer's appeal was allowed and the input tax was recoverable.[link]
SugaToyBoyDaddy
22 Mar 2015
Re: Update re. Results and Trading Updat... Here are a couple of examples of making ground in these type of case arguments.In Olympia Technology, the High Court held that the tribunal’s finding (that HMRC had to show that the taxable person knew (or ought to have known) of both the missing trader’s fraud and also the contra-trader’s involvement in that fraud) was, in the circumstances, too high a legal test. In the case where the contra-trader had himself been a dishonest co-conspirator it need not be shown that the taxable person knew or ought to have known of the missing trader’s default. It was sufficient if he knew or ought to have known of the contra-trader’s dishonesty. In a case where the contra-trader had not been dishonest, it was sufficient if the taxable person knew or ought to have known of the missing trader’s default. Accordingly, the tribunal had misstated the legal test, and had been “wrong to water down the requirement that the taxable person must take every precaution reasonably required”. The case was remitted to the tribunal, which reconsidered the case taking into account the “inherent probability” of fraud. It allowed the appeal in principle with regard to seven transactions but dismissed it with regard to eight transactions.In Blue Sphere, however, the High Court, in allowing the taxpayer’s appeal, considered that the burden was on HMRC to prove that the taxpayer ought to have known that by its purchases it had been participating in transactions connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT. Further, it was not sufficient to demonstrate that the taxpayer had been involved in transactions which “might” turn out to have undesirable associations. The relevant knowledge was that the taxpayer ought to have known that by its purchases it had been participating in transactions which had been connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT; that such transactions might be so connected was not enough. Similar considerations applied to the formulation of the case for HMRC. Their contention that the taxpayer ought to have known of the connection between its transactions and the fraudulent evasion of VAT by the defaulting traders in the “dirty” chain was not enough. HMRC had to prove that the taxpayer ought to have known that those other transactions had involved the fraudulent evasion of VAT. At the time the taxpayer had entered into the “clean” chain there had been no such “dirty” chain of which it could have known, nor had the occurrence of such “dirty” chain been inevitable in the sense of being pre-planned.The current state of jurisprudence with regard to “knowledge or means of knowledge” was summed up by Lewison J in Olympia Technology, and reproduced in Quality Export as follows
a) it is disproportionate and contrary to Community law to require a person who is a careful and honest trader to assume liability for the frauds of others;(b) it is also disproportionate to hold a taxable person liable for fraudulent acts of third parties over whom he has no influence;(c) a trader who does take every precaution that could reasonably be required of him, and does not realise that he is participating in VAT fraud, must be entitled to rely on the legality of his own transaction;(d) a person who knew or should have known that by his purchase he was taking part in a transaction connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT is to be treated in the same way as a person who fraudulently exercises the right to deduct;(e) it is not contrary to Community law to require a supplier to take every step that could reasonably be required of him to satisfy himself that the transaction which he is effecting does not result in his participation in tax evasion;(f) likewise a taxable person can be expected to act with all due diligence and care; and(g) whether a taxable person knew or should have known that he was participating in a transaction connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT must be determined having reg
SugaToyBoyDaddy
21 Mar 2015
Re: Update re. Results and Trading Updat... Hi ClockworktangerineSorry I have not been able to reply until now.It appears to me from the CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEEDINGS and other parts of the PDF file in Jaknifes link,that there are references made to various cases that are either in, or have been in, that are of a similar kind of dispute at some point..and in one case it was mentioned that Expert witnesses for HMRC were in fact non expert.and therefore some evidence was deemed unsubmissable . there is also mention in some cases where documents were with held by HMRC then later made to disclose.I think that the more ground these companies make in there arguments,the more tricor can use and refer to in there own case against HMRC. I also think that the longer Tricor can drag this out the more ground can be acheived by other company cases.Which in turn can be used to help Tricor appeal their case and have a better fighting chance to gain good results in the future.I wont claim to know much about the legal stuff,but I think the cat and mouse game is not over by a long shot.With reference to the accounts,I've not heard much recently to make a comment.
JakNife
06 Mar 2015
Re: Another month gone by .....sad? There is no chance whatsoever of the VAT appeal being a success. You can read the last appeal here:[link] very long and goes into a lot of detail showing the exact facts and therefore it's very difficult to argue with its conclusion. Skip to page 96 and read the sentence at the bottom of the page:"The Appellants knew at the time of entering the disputed transactions that each of those transactions was connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT."It doesn't get plainer than that. The tribunal concluded that the company knowingly entered into a deliberate fraud.There is no chance that Tricor will win another appeal. Personally, I suspect that the company will never come back from suspension.JakNife
clockwurktangerine
05 Mar 2015
Re: Another month gone by .....sad? Yes sad for shareholders...but sand will bring home the baconAny thoughts on the vat appeal and accounts please?
