October 27th, 2016

Businessman guilty of £120,000 VAT fraud

Businessman guilty of £120,000 VAT fraud Businessman guilty of £120,000 VAT fraud
Updated: 8:56 am, Jan 11, 2016

A BUSINESSMAN from Leamington defrauded HM Revenue and Customs out of more than £120,000 by charging VAT and then declaring that the work had been zero-rated.

David Silcock, a director of construction firm Silky Civils Ltd, had pleaded guilty at Warwick Crown Court to six charges of being concerned in the fraudulent evasion of tax.

Those charges related to him failing to declare output tax which had been paid to Silky Civils Ltd by Taylor Wimpey Ltd between November 2011 and April 2013.

The 48 year-old of Whitnash Road, Leamington, also admitted furnishing a false document to HMRC claiming that tax had been incorrectly calculated when the full extent of the company’s sales had been suppressed due to cash flow problems.

At a hearing in September last year, the director had denied further charges of furnishing false documents which he had passed to his accountant for the preparation of VAT returns.

But when he appeared at the court for a pre-trial hearing prosecutor Stephen Thomas asked to add a further similar charge of furnishing false documents, to which Silcock pleaded guilty.

The court had heard that in 2013, as a director of Silky Civils, Silcock had submitted false invoices to his accountant for use in the preparation of VAT returns.

They purported to show that sub-contract construction work Silky Civils had carried out had been zero-rated work, when in fact VAT had been charged at the standard rate for the work.

Silcock had been due to stand trial in March, but Mr Thomas said his plea to that additional charge was sufficient to resolve the case.

Richard Atkins QC, defending, pointed out: “He has paid back £126,000 – and there is £18,000 we’re in discussion over.”

At Mr Atkins’ request, Recorder Anthony Potter adjourned the case for a pre-sentence report to be prepared.

Silcock was granted unconditional bail, but Recorder Potter warned him: “You should not draw any conclusions from that.  All options will be open on the next occasion to the sentencing judge.”