H Ripley & Co Limited Loses Appeal on Insufficient Export Evidence for VAT Zero-Rating

Background and Assessment: In 2016, H Ripley & Co Limited (HR) sold scrap metal to Recylink International and treated the sales as zero-rated for VAT, claiming the goods were removed to Belgium. However, in 2017, HMRC assessed HR for VAT due to insufficient evidence of the goods’ removal from the UK as required by VAT Notice 725.
Evidence and Tribunal Findings: HR presented various documents to support their claim, including sale invoices, bank statements, weighbridge tickets, and international consignment notes. However, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT) concluded that these documents, when considered together, did not sufficiently prove the removal of the scrap metal from the UK.
Outcome of Appeal: The UT upheld the FTT’s decision, agreeing that HR did not meet the evidence requirements for zero-rating and excluded late evidence (P&O boarding cards) obtained after the three-month limit. Consequently, HR’s appeal was dismissed, confirming their failure to satisfy the conditions for zero-rating VAT on the transaction.

Case Overview: In the case of H Ripley & Co v HMRC [2025] UKUT 210 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed an appeal against the First-tier Tribunal’s (FTT) ruling that the company was not entitled to zero-rated VAT on scrap metal transactions, as the evidence provided to prove the goods were removed to Belgium was deemed insufficient under VAT Notice 725.
Grounds for Appeal: The Appellant raised six grounds for appeal, including concerns about the FTT’s delay in issuing its decision, alleged errors in legal interpretation, inappropriate reliance on VAT Notice 725 to exclude certain evidence (like P&O boarding cards), failure to apply EU law principles, and a lack of acknowledgment of a commercial system for the transactions.
UT’s Decision: The UT thoroughly considered and rejected all six grounds, affirming the FTT’s findings and concluding that the evidence presented by H Ripley & Co did not meet the necessary standards for demonstrating the removal of goods, thus upholding the decision that the company was not entitled to the zero rate for VAT on the scrap metal transactions.