[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
First-tier Tribunal (Tax) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Tax) >> Ilford Cellular Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 435 (TC) (14 August 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2013/TC02829.html Cite as: [2013] UKFTT 435 (TC) |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[2013] UKFTT 435 (TC)
TC02829
Appeal number: TC/2011/00315
VAT – Appellant’s transactions connected to MTIC fraud – Whether appellant should have known of connection – Yes – Appeal dismissed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
|
ILFORD CELLULAR LIMITED |
Appellant |
|
|
|
|
- and - |
|
|
|
|
|
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S |
Respondents |
|
REVENUE & CUSTOMS |
|
TRIBUNAL: |
JUDGE JOHN BROOKS |
|
HARVEY ADAMS FCA |
Sitting in public at 45 Bedford Square, London WC1 on 10 – 14, 17 and 20 June 2013
Liban Ahmed of Controlled Tax Management Limited for the Appellant
David Bedenham, counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
DECISION
Dear Mr Umarji,
AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUS NOTIFICATION OF A DECISION TO REFUSE ENTITLEMENT TO THE RIGHT TO DEDUCT INPUT TAX
As a result of work undertaken by HMRC in preparing for the defence of the appeal, the Commissioners have decided to withdraw the decision to deny input tax in relation to 43 deals listed in the first annex to this letter. In relation to the remaining deals (6 in total and listed in the second annex to this letter) the Commissioners will continue to defend the denials.
The Commissioners remain satisfied that you should have known that these transactions were connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT and accordingly your right to deduct input tax was denied.
Arrangements are currently being made to refund the amounts due as a result of this amendment to deny, subject to the off-setting of any existing amounts due to HMRC from you.
I will write to you again as soon as possible to confirm these arrangements.
Yours sincerely,
Dean Watson
Higher Officer, HM Revenue and Customs
The first annex to this letter is included as an appendix to this decision. However, it is not necessary for us to append the second annex to the decision as we have set out the six deals in which input tax was denied in some detail below.
5. In support of his invitation to consider all 49 deals, Mr Ahmed referred us, in his closing submissions, to the following passage from the judgment of Christopher Clarke J in Red12 v HMRC [2009] EWHC 2563 (Ch), which we note was cited and adopted by Moses LJ giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Mobilx & Ors v HMRC [2010] STC 1436, at [83]:
“109 Examining individual transactions on their merits does not, however, require them to be regarded in isolation without regard to their attendant circumstances and context. Nor does it require the tribunal to ignore compelling similarities between one transaction and another or preclude the drawing of inferences, where appropriate, from a pattern of transactions of which the individual transaction in question forms part, as to its true nature e.g. that it is part of a fraudulent scheme. The character of an individual transaction may be discerned from material other than the bare facts of the transaction itself, including circumstantial and "similar fact" evidence. That is not to alter its character by reference to earlier or later transactions but to discern it.
110 To look only at the purchase in respect of which input tax was sought to be deducted would be wholly artificial. A sale of 1,000 mobile telephones may be entirely regular, or entirely regular so far as the taxpayer is (or ought to be) aware. If so, the fact that there is fraud somewhere else in the chain cannot disentitle the taxpayer to a return of input tax. The same transaction may be viewed differently if it is the fourth in line of a chain of transactions all of which have identical percentage mark ups, made by a trader who has practically no capital as part of a huge and unexplained turnover with no left over stock, and mirrored by over 40 other similar chains in all of which the taxpayer has participated and in each of which there has been a defaulting trader. A tribunal could legitimately think it unlikely that the fact that all 46 of the transactions in issue can be traced to tax losses to HMRC is a result of innocent coincidence. Similarly, three suspicious involvements may pale into insignificance if the trader has been obviously honest in thousands.
111 Further in determining what it was that the taxpayer knew or ought to have known the tribunal is entitled to look at the totality of the deals effected by the taxpayer (and their characteristics), and at what the taxpayer did or omitted to do, and what it could have done, together with the surrounding circumstances in respect of all of them.”
10. As MTIC fraud has been described in many times, not only by this Tribunal but also the appellate Courts and Tribunals (eg by Roth J at [1] – [3] of POWA (Jersey) Ltd v HMRC [2012] UKUT 50 (TCC)), it is not necessary for us to explain either its operation or variations, such as contra-trading, in this decision. In the present case the first four transactions are alleged to have been “typical” or “basic” MTIC fraud and the fifth and sixth “contra-trading”.
11. It is not disputed that the burden of proof in this appeal is on HMRC and that the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, applies.
12. There is also agreement on the applicable law, namely Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 which has been implemented into UK domestic law by ss 24-26 Value Added Tax Act 1994 and Regulation 29 of The VAT Regulations 1995 under which an exporter is, in principle, entitled to claim a deduction of input tax. An exception to this right was identified by the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”), in the joint cases of Axel Kittel v Belgium & Belgium v Recolta Recycling SPRL (C-439/04 and C-440/04) [2006] ECR 1 – 6161 where the Court stated:
“[51] … traders who take every precaution which could reasonably be required of them to ensure that their transactions are not connected with fraud, be it the fraudulent evasion of VAT or other fraud, must be able to rely on the legality of those transactions without the risk of losing the right to deduct the input VAT.
…
[56]. … a taxable person who knew or should have known that, by his purchase, he was taking part in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT must, for the purposes of the Sixth Directive, be regarded as a participant in that fraud, irrespective of whether or not he profited by the resale of the goods.
[57] That is because in such a situation the taxable person aids the perpetrators of the fraud and becomes their accomplice.
[58] In addition such an interpretation, by making it more difficult to carry out fraudulent transactions, is apt to prevent them.
[59] Therefore, it is for the referring court to refuse entitlement to the right to deduct where it is ascertained, having regard to objective factors, that the taxable person knew or should have known that, by his purchase, he was participating in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT, and do so even where the transaction in question meets the objective criteria which form the basis of the concept of “supply of goods effected by a taxable person acting as such” and “economic activity”.
…
[61] … where it is ascertained, having regard to objective factors, that the supply is to a taxable person who knew or should have known that, by his purchase, he was participating in a transaction connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT, it is for the national court to refuse that taxable person entitlement to the right to deduct.”
“[59] The test in Kittel is simple and should not be over-refined. It embraces not only those who know of the connection but those who “should have known”. Thus it includes those who should have known from the circumstances which surround their transactions that they were connected to fraudulent evasion. If a trader should have known that the only reasonable explanation for the transaction in which he was involved was that it was connected with fraud and if it turns out that the transaction was connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT then he should have known of that fact. He may properly be regarded as a participant for the reasons explained in Kittel.
[60] The true principle to be derived from Kittel does not extend to circumstances in which a taxable person should have known that by his purchase it was more likely than not that his transaction was connected with fraudulent evasion. But a trader may be regarded as a participant where he should have known that the only reasonable explanation for the circumstances in which his purchase took place was that it was a transaction connected with such fraudulent evasion.”
(1) Dean Walton – in respect of ICL and Vision Soft Limited.
(2) Daniel O’Neil – in respect of Global Roaming Limited.
(3) Daniel Outram – in respect of The Callender Group Limited
(4) Barry Patterson – in respect of Goodluck Employment Services Limited.
(5) Fu Lam – in respect of West 1 Management Limited.
(6) George Edwards – in respect of Phone City Limited.
(7) Juan Jose Loureiro – in respect of the First Curacao International Bank (“FCIB”).
(8) Philippa Purnell – in respect of Dolphin Telecom UK Limited.
(9) Matthew Quinn – in respect of Cybersol Limited.
(10) Claire Sharkey – in respect of A/C Electrical Limited.
(11) Fiona Weldon – in respect of Southern Phonecare Limited.
(12) Terrance Mendes – in respect of FX Drona Limited.
(13) Stewart Yule – in respect of Activmind Limited.
(14) Vivien Parsons – in respect of Alpha Sim Limited.
(15) Ian Henderson – in respect of ET Phones Limited.
(16) Huw Gingell – in respect of Storm 90 Limited.
(17) Steve Paling – in respect of Sourthern Phonecare Limited.
(18) Paul Cole – in respect of Realtech Limited.
(19) Jon Read – in respect of Parfums UK Limited.
(20) Susan Hirons – in respect of Zoom Limited.
15. We were also provided with the witness statements of Catherine Clark of Nokia UK Limited regarding the Nokia 8801 mobile phone handset and Gary Taylor, a director of PricewaterhouseCoopers (“PwC”) whose statement was in the form of an expert report into the grey market for UK-based distributers of new mobile handsets in 2006 and also assessed a selection of ICL’s invoices in the light of grey market “indicators” outlined in the report.
16. Of the HMRC officers only Dean Walton gave evidence before us. We also heard from Gary Taylor. Both were cross-examined by Mr Ahmed. Although we did not hear from any other witnesses on behalf of HMRC their evidence was not challenged and their statements were admitted in evidence.
18. There was little, if any, conflict over most of the evidence. However, in one area there was a clear divergence between the parties. This was in relation to the Nokia 8801 handset and whether it could be used in Europe and it is to this issue we now turn before setting out our findings of fact.
19. It was not disputed that the Nokia 8801 is a “high end” mobile phone that was manufactured for the American (ie USA, Canada and Latin American) market and that a European specification 8801 did not exist, the European equivalent was the Nokia 8800 which was the same model destined for the European market. The evidence of Catherine Clark of Nokia was that sales of the 8801 were small, the Nokia Profitability Reporting System, which shows sales and volume details, indicates that 144,541 phones were sold in North and Latin America. There were no sales from Nokia to Nokia Authorised Distributors in the UK or Europe.
20. In one of the transactions with which this appeal is concerned ICL purchased 6,000 Nokia 8801s from Euro-Spec Telecom Limited which it sold to a Danish company, Phone Trade APS.
23. This meant that the Nokia could be used most European countries as it had the GSM 1800 band. Ms Clark understood that no conversion would be needed for the 8801 to work on the European 1800 GSM band.
27. As such, we find that while it is technically possible for a Nokia 8801 to be used in the UK and Europe, in practical terms it would not have worked in the UK and Europe.
37. In its corporation tax returns ICL declared the following turnover:
Year Ending Turnover (£)
28 February 2001 9,922.732
28 February 2002 11,783,535
28 February 2003 10,484,234
28 February 2004 15,423,739
28 February 2005 30,139,844
28 February 2006 9,908,990
28 February 2007 22,117,022
28 February 2008 2,311,364
28 February 2009 1,169,408
28 February 2010 5,169,408
Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) VAT fraud constitutes one of the most costly current forms of VAT fraud within the EU. It is a serious problem for the UK and is Customs’ top VAT fraud priority …
Amongst the commodities regularly involved are computer chips and mobile phones and the VAT loss from this type of fraud in the UK alone is between £1.7 and £2.6 billion per anum.
The letter continued, explaining that HMRC were experiencing problems in ICL’s trade sector and that it should, from 4 August 2003, verify the VAT status of new or potential Customers/Suppliers with HMRC’s Redhill office providing the following information:
(1) The name of the new or potential customer/supplier.
(2) Their VAT registration number.
(3) Their contact numbers (including telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and mobile numbers if known).
(4) Copies of any supporting documentation (ie VAT certificate, letter of introduction, certificate of incorporation etc.).
(5) The Directors and/or responsible members.
(6) Whether they are buying or selling goods.
(7) The nature of the goods.
(8) The quantities of the goods.
(9) The value of the goods.
(10) Their bank sort code and account number.
(11) A request to forward, on a monthly basis, a purchase and sales listing with identifying VAT Registration Numbers against the suppliers/customers to the traders your local VAT office.
41. On 2 March 2006 Sarl M S Enterprises, a French company, purchased 1,100 Nokia N70s from ICL for £288,200. ICL had acquired the goods on the same day from TM Global Limited trading as Team Mobile International. It had been supplied, also on 2 March 2006, by Global Roaming Limited. Global Roaming had acquired the N70s from Anderson Data and Components Limited which had, in turn been supplied by the Callender Group Limited all on 2 March 2006.
Last accounts filed were for a small business … No current financial information turnover is now in excess of £50 millions.
The Report also stated that TM Global acquired its stock from “UK wholesalers and EU”.
47. On 7 March 2006 ICL sold 2,000 Nokia 9300s to XL Corporation LLC a company based in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) for £378,000. ICL had been offered and acquired the phones from Silver Birch Corporation which ICL paid on 14 March 2006 after the goods had been shipped. The invoice issued by Silver Birch to ICL, dated 6 March 2006, states:
Goods remain property of Silver Birch Corporation Ltd until full settlement has been made.
… established with nominal capital and that its turnover “is currently running at £5 million to £6 million per month.
51. On 20 March 2006 ICL sold 6,000 Nokia 8801s to a new customer, the Danish company Phone Trade APS for £3,192,000 shipping the goods to a third party warehouse in France on the same day.
52. In evidence Mr Umarji confirmed that this ICL’s largest ever deal. As we have noted (in paragraphs 20–28 above) the Nokia 8801 was not manufactured for the European market and its use in Europe would have been limited.
Goods remain the property of Euro-Spec Telecom Ltd until full payment has been received.
Payment was made by ICL on 21 March 2006 after it had received funds from its customer and after the goods had been despatched. ICL used its FCIB account to make and receive funds as did all other participants in the deal, something Mr Umarji described as a “deal breaker” as Euro-Spec did not have an account other than with FCIB.
“No, I mean it would've crossed my mind but it's - I mean it happens. I mean I'll get stock offered, you know, thousands of stock offered from various suppliers throughout the day. It's just how it is. You know, someone knows someone, there's various mediums of communication. Obviously, you've got phone, text, email, fax.”
“… just a formality because HMRC at that time spoke about due diligence of suppliers and customers, and it was sort of common practice throughout the industry.”
58. The following transactions all took place on 18 July 2006. ICL sold 2,000 Nokia 9300s to Buy and Cell Trading LLC of the UAE for £289,000 having bought them from TM Global. TM Global’s supplier was Global Roaming Limited which had acquired the 9300s from KK Electrical, Plumbing and Building Services Limited which in turn has acquired them from Phone City Limited.
60. It was not disputed that Phone City Limited was a fraudulent defaulter
61. On 11 August 2006 ICL sold 2,000 Nokia 9300s to Singapore based Raduga PTE Limited for £280,000, 500 Nokia 9300s to Charlie International in India for £70,000 and 500 Nokia 9300s to Emjay Enterprises PTE a Singapore based company for £69,250.
62. ICL had acquired the 3,000 Nokia 9300s, on 7 August 2006, from TM Global which it paid after the goods had been transported to its customers. TM Global had been supplied by Global Roaming which had acquired the goods from a Cypriot company, Etecom.
64. On 23 August 2006 Emjay Enterprises PTE, in Singapore, bought 1,000 Nokia 9300i mobile phones from ICL for £140,000. ICL’s supplier on 22 August 2006 date was Zain Communications Limited which ICL paid on 29 August 2006 although the goods were shipped and released to Emjay on 22 August 2006. Zain had acquired the phones from the contra-trader Global Roaming which had been supplied by Etecom.
66. ICL made the following profits in the above six deals:
Deal Profit (£)
1 13,000
2 19,000
3 291,000
4 29,000
5 35,000
6 20,000
67. In Midland Mortgages & Ors. v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 631 (TC), to which we were referred by Mr Bedenham, the Tribunal identified the following issues to be determined in an appeal such as the present:
(1) Was there a tax loss?
(2) If so, did this loss result from a fraudulent evasion?
(3) If there was a fraudulent evasion, were the Appellant’s transactions which were the subject of this appeal connected with that evasion? and
(4) If such a connection was established, did the Appellant know or should it have known that its transactions were connected with a fraudulent evasion of VAT?
68. These were the questions that had been asked by the Tribunal in Blue Square Global v HMRC and were approved by the Court of Appeal in Mobilx, at [69]. However, in the present case it is accepted that there had been a loss of tax due to fraudulent evasion and that ICL’s transactions, with which this appeal is concerned, were connected with that evasion. Therefore, as actual knowledge is not alleged by HMRC, the issue before the Tribunal is whether ICL, through its director Mr Umarji, should have known that its transactions were connected to that fraudulent evasion of VAT.
69. In reaching a conclusion on this issue it is clear from Mobilx and Red12 that we should not examine the individual transactions in isolation but have regard to their attendant circumstances and context. It is also clear from Mobile Export 365 v HMRC [2007] EWHC 1737 (Ch), at [20], that we are entitled to rely on inferences drawn from the primary facts.
70. We also note, as Roth J said in POWA (Jersey) Ltd v HMRC at [53], that:
“… no special approach is needed in a case involving contra-trading. The correct test as regards knowledge is always the same. It is the test derived from Kittel as set out in para [59] of Moses LJ’s judgment [in Mobilx which is set at paragraph 12, above].
“Understands the problem of Missing trader fraud and Re-circulation of goods”
Similar comments are to be found in each of Veracis Reports which Mr Umarji confirmed he had read when he was cross-examined by Mr Bedenham.
76. As Floyd J said in the High Court in Mobilx (at [87]) a “company has to exercise independent judgment, not delegate its judgment to HMRC”. In Eurosel v HMRC [2010] UKFTT 451 (TC) the Tribunal (Judge Porter and Ms Tanner), with which we agree, said, at [29]:
“We consider that the advising of traders of a potential MTIC situation is not a ‘public law obligation’ and we do not believe that it is necessarily prudent for HMRC to advise all individuals, who might be involved in MTIC fraud, of that fact. We do not, therefore, accept that it is either an abuse of HMRC’s powers or a breach of Eurosel’s ‘legitimate expectations’ for them not to have been informed that they might be involved in an MTIC fraud.”
81. We have already considered the Nokia 8801 (at paragraphs 19-27, above) a high end phone manufactured for the American market with low sales which in practical terms could not be used in the UK and Europe which was the subject matter of deal 3. With regard to the phones in the other deals, Mr Taylor described the Nokia N70, the type of phone traded in deal 1 as “high end and expensive” and “the Maserati of mobile phones”.
82. The differences between the Nokia 9300, which was traded in deals 2, 4 and 5 and Nokia 9300i, traded in deal 6 were described by Mr Taylor as “fairly small”. He said that this type of mobile phone was “the defining smart phone of the year” and that the quantities traded in these deals would not have been a common stock offering from a non-Authorised Distributer. Mr Taylor explained said that even an Authorised Distributer (ie a Distributer with a formal agreement to source handsets directly from a Manufacturer) would not have dealt in the quantities of this type of phone traded by ICL saying:
“We are talking about dozens and aggregating into hundreds. The largest operators, or distributers, are talking in those orders of magnitude.”
“I think you need to look more into the director himself rather than Euro-Spec. I know Euro-Spec is the company in question, but he’s got his contacts and it’s not really my business how and where they’ve got – they’ve acquired this stock. He may have, well, not paid for it. He might have got it ship on hold. I don’t know. I really don’t know, like a lot of other deals I do.”
“How did I add to the - I didn't add anything to the transaction. I've got a customer at one end and I've got a supplier at one end. I've got history with the supplier. I've got history with the customer. I've put a deal together and that's my prerogative for being in the industry for a while and having the contacts.”
93. As such, having regard to all the circumstances taken together with his knowledge and awareness of MTIC fraud in the wholesale mobile phone market, we find that Mr Umarji should have known that the only reasonable explanation for the six transactions in which input tax was denied was their connection to fraud. accordingly he, and therefore ICL, should have known that these transactions were connected to fraud.
95. For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed
Appendix
ANNEX 1 [to HMRC’s letter of 20 May 2011] The 43 Deals on which HMRC are withdrawing the decision to deny input tax
Period 03/06
Date in VAT Account |
Supplier Name |
Ilford Purchase Ref |
Supplier invoice Number |
Goods Supplied |
Input Tax Claimed £ |
03/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3330 |
10144 |
200 x Nokia 7610 |
4,445.00 |
03/03/06 |
London Cellular Acc. |
TT3328 |
008032 |
300 x Nokia 6230i |
6,405.00 |
07/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3330 |
10190 |
400 x Nokia 6680 |
11,060.00 |
07/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3330 |
10190 |
210 x Nokia 7610 |
4,593.75 |
07/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3330 |
10182 |
100 x Sony Ericsson W800i |
2,765.00 |
07/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3330 |
10182 |
100 x Nokia 6280 |
2,765.00 |
07/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3330 |
10190 |
10 x Samsung D500 |
218.75 |
08/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3334 |
10201 |
1,000 x Motorola V3 Black |
16,625.00 |
23/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3334 |
10270 |
500 x Nokia 7610 |
10,543.75 |
08/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3332 |
10261 |
200 x Nokia N70 |
7,525.00 |
08/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3332 |
10261 |
300 x Nokia N70 |
11,287.50 |
08/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3332 |
10261 |
250 x Samsung D500 |
5,250.00 |
23/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3334 |
10301 |
400 x Motorola Pink |
7,000.00 |
17/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3334 |
10311 |
220 x Sony Ericsson W800i |
5,890.50 |
22/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3334 |
10352 |
300 x Sony Ericsson W800i |
7,980.00 |
22/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3338 |
10366 |
400 x Nokia 7610 |
8,540.00 |
21/03/06 |
TM Global |
TT3335 |
13805 |
700 x Motorola V3 Black |
66,500.00 |
31/03/06 |
Lexus Telecom UK |
TT3339 |
1799 |
1,000 x Motorola V3 Black |
15,925.00 |
31/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3342 |
10460 |
600 x Motorola V3 Black |
9,686.25 |
22/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3338 |
10352 |
100 x Nokia 7610 |
2,135.00 |
22/03/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3338 |
10366 |
200 x Nokia N70 |
7,490.00 |
14/03/06 |
London Cellular Accessories Ltd |
TT3333 |
008092 |
350 x Nokia 6230i |
7,227.50 |
|
Total for 03/06 |
|
|
|
£221,858.00 |
Period 07/06
Date of Purchase |
Supplier Name/VAT Registration |
Ilford Purchase Ref |
Supplier Invoice Number |
Goods Supplied |
Input Tax Claimed £ |
11/07/06 |
Lexus Telecom UK |
TT3388 |
1914 |
630 x Nokia N70 |
18,191.25 |
13/07/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3391 |
7609 |
440 x Motorola |
6,429.50 |
14/07/06 |
Lexus Telecom Export |
TT3380 |
1922 |
399 x Nokia N70 |
11,730.60 |
17/07/06 |
Lexus Telecom Ltd |
TT3389 |
1921 |
1,000 x Nokia N70 |
29,400.00 |
18/07/06 |
Broadcast Ltd |
TT3393 |
P12006-134 |
2,000 x Nokia 7610 |
37,100.00 |
18/07/06 |
TM Global |
TT3394 |
19795 |
2,000 x Nokia 9300 |
45,500.00 |
17/07/06 |
Lexus Telecom |
TT3389 |
1924 |
724 x Nokia N70 |
21,285.60 |
25/07/06 |
Broadcast Ltd |
TT3404 |
P12006-139 |
1,000 x Nokia 8800 |
44,625.00 |
27/0706 |
New Way Associates |
TT3405 |
|
1,850 x Nokia N70 |
10,902.50 |
31/07/06 |
Lexus Telecom UK Ltd |
TT3399 |
51690 |
2,000 x Nokia 6630 |
35,000.00 |
31/07/06 |
TZ Mobile Comms |
TT2409 |
13907 |
441 x SE W810i |
10,843.09 |
31/07/06 |
TM Global Ltd |
TT3408 |
19865 |
2,000 x Samsung D600 |
35,500.00 |
31/07/06 |
Economic Factors |
TT3407 |
E23780 |
1,000 x Nokia 1600 |
4,550.00 |
|
Total 07/06 |
|
|
|
£314,057.54 |
Period 08/06
Date of Purchase |
Supplier Name/VAT Registration |
Ilford Purchase Ref |
Supplier Invoice Number |
Goods Supplied |
Input Tax Claimed £ |
01/08/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3411 |
9855 |
1,000 x Samsung D820 |
22,050.00 |
04/08/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3412 |
11435 |
2,000 x Samsung D820 |
44,100.00 |
08/08/06 |
New Way Associates |
TT3414 |
11470 |
1,000 x Motorola V3 Black |
13,650.00 |
09/08/06 |
Broadcast Ltd |
TT3415 |
P12006-150 |
2,500 x Nokia N70 |
70,000.00 |
07/08/06 |
TM Global |
TT3418 |
19880 |
198 x Nokia N70 |
5,647.95 |
17/08/06 |
Lexus Telecom Ltd |
TT3417 |
1972 |
1,000 x Motorola V3 Black |
13,037.50 |
31/08/06 |
Zain Communications |
TT3423 |
7279 |
220 x Nokia 9300 |
4,620.00 |
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
£173,105.45 |
Period 09/06
Date of Purchase |
Supplier Name/VAT Registration |
Ilford Purchase Ref |
Supplier Invoice Number |
Goods Supplied |
Input Tax Claimed £ |
06/09/06 |
Broadcast Ltd |
TT3433 |
I2006-163 P2006-163 |
690 x Nokia 6233 |
13,644.75 |
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
£13,644.75 |