Natasha Barnes

Tax

Natasha’s practice covers litigation and advice across all areas of indirect tax. She regularly appears before the Upper Tax Tribunal and in high value appeals heard in the First-tier Tax Tribunal. Those cases have involved the interpretation of EU directives, fiscal neutrality, the place of supply, triangulation, human rights in relation to tax law, the excise warehousing scheme and the alcohol wholesaler registration scheme.

Selected Cases

• R (on the application of Seabrook Warehousing Ltd) v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 1357: Court of Appeal dismissed the taxpayer’s challenge holding that the regulations and due diligence requirements imposed on alcohol traders were justified and proportionate.
• Q Ltd v HMRC: Court of Appeal case concerning the lawfulness of due diligence requirements imposed on over 3,000 businesses trading in duty suspended goods.
• N Brown v HMRC: Junior in complex partial exemption dispute.
• Learning Centre v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 492 (TC): Important lead cases addressing whether supplies could be treated differently for VAT purposes across the devolved nations.
• Ampleawards Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 0715 (TC): Case concerning the lawfulness of the ‘fall back’ provisions, which enable HMRC in certain circumstances to assess a UK trader for acquisition tax on goods which have never physically entered the UK, behind which a number of high value appeals stood.
• Rurkhee Trading Company Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 161 (TC): Defended HMRC’s decision to revoke the approval of Rurkhee Trading to trade in duty-suspended alcohol under the Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations (WOWGR).
• HMRC v Life Services [2017] UKUT 484 (TCC): Junior counsel for HMRC in an appeal in which the Upper Tribunal overturned the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the UK’s treatment of supplies of welfare services breached the principle of fiscal neutrality.
• AC Wholesale v HMRC [2017] UKUT 191: Junior counsel for HMRC in an MTIC appeal before the Upper Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal rejected the Appellant’s argument that HMRC were required to eliminate all possible explanations for the transactions other than fraud before finding that the taxpayer should have known that its transactions were connected with fraud.
• Fio’s Cash & Carry Ltd v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 346: Sole counsel for HMRC in an appeal against a £900,000 VAT assessment. The Tribunal found for HMRC, concluding that it had exercised its best judgment in assessing the total value of under-declared sales and the proportion of those sales which were zero-rated.
• Multimedia Computing Ltd v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 779: Sole counsel in proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal in relation to a £1 million VAT assessment. The case raised complex issues as to the place of supply.