TriCell LTD (fka TCLL)

[micuzzu45]

Anyone know where we can get the latest updates on this please?
Did they win the Verdict????

[trailorparkboy]

The latest, looks like we may have to wait who knows.....It states they may let the ECJ make a decision but they ahve already decided with tricell see PR below so who knows, might get interesting I wish/hope tricell will issue a PR after the decision


Devika: Costly waiting game for traders
February 19, 2010

By Devika Sen-Gupta (contact [e-mail])

This VAT fraud saga is to turn a new page when the Court of Appeal releases its verdict on a new conjoined VAT fraud case. But will it be the finale?

We’ve been here before, many times. Traders are hopeful a new court ruling will open floodgates and see VAT witheld by Customs returned to them. One thing is for sure, if we have learnt anything in this saga, there will be no great repayment to traders.

Customs’ strategy is neccessary to stop carousel fraud and robbery of the public purse, but it is plainly flawed also. Many traders facing lengthy and expensive court battles for witheld VAT funds are innocent.

They are defending themselves against a loose interpretation of a ‘means of knowledge’ test, first implemented by Brussels in the Axel-Kittel case.

The import/export trade and Customs both require a clearer definition of ‘knowledge’, or of ways of knowing of VAT fraud in a supply chain. Is it enough for Customs to argue it can withold VAT from traders simply because they should be aware carousel fraud exists?

Or should the burden of proof be on Customs to show traders have reasonable means to detect actual fraud in their own supply chains?

Although this new conjoined case of four traders is being heard this week in the Court of Appeal, a judgement won’t be released until March. And even then, if the judges decide to refer the case to the ECJ in order to get clarity on the law, it could be three years for any legislation to be set down.

Clarity should come but, for now, as for the past four years, it is a very costly waiting game.

And some good traders, crippled by Customs’ policy on the matter, will be unable to work, or contribute to the British economy.





Tricell is Pleased to Announce European Court of Justice Decision on Tax Refund
AFFORDSHIRE, U.K., Tricell Inc.
(OTC Pink Sheets: TCLL), today announces that the European Court of Justice
ruled in favor of companies such as Tricell whose VAT refunds had been
withheld by HM Revenue + Customs. This decision emanates from HM Revenue +
Customs' prosecution of the Finance Bill of 2003 which made companies liable
to the VAT debts of other firms who may have engaged in fraud. The ECJ ruled
that a person who carries out an otherwise lawful transaction can not be
affected by the fact that in the chain of supply of which that transaction
forms part, another prior or subsequent transaction is compromised by value
added tax fraud, without that person knowing or having any means of knowing of
such fraud. HM Revenue + Customs' position was that this fraud, also referred
to as "missing trader fraud," occurred when a business imported goods, in
Tricell's case electronic commodities such as cellular telephones, then sold
the goods to another business with VAT added to the sales price and the
selling importer then did not pay the VAT withheld.
HM Revenue + Customs had withheld VAT refunds to importers who submitted
proper refund requests, but who had the misfortune of buying or selling goods
which some other business had not paid their separate independent VAT refund.
Andre Salt, Tricell's CEO and Chairman of the Board, stated, "Tricell can now
buy goods in the open market without fear of having VAT refunds withheld by
Customs.
Andre Salt added, "We are very relieved and pleased with the ruling of the
ECJ, Tricell will now pursue damages for lost profits, attorneys' fees
expended, and other damages."

[HobbyTrader]

Yeah, I think the potential here is incredible. If that ruling goes in TriCell's favor this could get REALLY INTERESTING.

[Stock]

a very wide chart

[trailorparkboy]

Well forget about that comment of selling at .0012....he good news I just bought 100k at -0012 I hope

[trailorparkboy]

I didn't expect much...its a wait and see game, this stock is not being promoted no news, no one wants to sell at .001 when they know if they hang on they could get a lot more...it be interesting to see if there is any loose lips over a pint of best bitter and a packet of crisp next week in a london pub....if someone had a bunch of money lying around he could sure have a lot of fun with this one until the verdict comes down.....spread a few rumours by up a lot of stock and sit back and watch greed and panic

[jking1999]

What a difference a day makes:

Yes, we're green, but on all of 30000 shares (90.00), and the bid has dropped to .0012.

Oh well...

[trading94]

I own over 300k shares,looking for some more soon,me think it's worth it,if they win this will go to .20,

[trailorparkboy]

I will repeat this is your decision....that 30k is mine, not much but I'm going to chip away

[trading94]

nice,I think it is worth trowing some money in,IMO

[trailorparkboy]

Read the news release your guess is as good as mine, today is the last court day...so starting next week i guess they'll start pissing over the verdict.....its a crap shoot for sure, one part of me says buy 5 million shares and maybe make a million out of this the other says don't waste your money, so I'm on the fence, by the way they have stated if they win they'll payout as cash distribution

[trading94]

and we will know in march?

[trailorparkboy]

If I can remember HRMC owed 79 million dallors or pounds from VAT with holdings, there is 350,000,000 shares divided by $79,000,000.00 equals .225 cents dollars or pounds/shares.....so if they won and you invested 3,000.00 dollars for a million shares.....well don't listened to me I've lost a pile of money of this play, but you can dream

[trading94]

if the ruling is in favor where do we see this stock,whats their piece of the pie

[jking1999]

Not a problem. Hope you are right about lightening striking (but that's pretty close to what we thought during the last mo-mo play).

P.S. About the legal fees - as I remember it, the law firm was hired on a contingency basis, meaning they'd get a rather big cut of the pie.

[nsearle]

AMEN Brother! I've averaged down for 4 years.

[trailorparkboy]

I have to admitt being a canadian our government has done a good job not following the rest of the world....I'm going to pick up some stock over the next few trading sessions cause the reward is far greater than the risk....I did the math as well and I get the same share price, but if you read the 8k it states the lawyers get a piece, that being said they also said they would go after damages......in my eyes when you BK a public company there are huge damage claims......stay tuned....for once in a few years I'm getting exited.....I bought this stock as high as 40 cents........friggen better sue for damages

[nsearle]

I find the entire process rather interesting. The Brit's never had a right to the VAT. They withheld it and forced the traders to sue them. Then, drew it out for ever. How would you like your government to act in that manner (perhaps they do?). The gross VAT is a pimple on the elephants arse relative to the entire economic challenge and the level of debt across the developed world.

[trailorparkboy]

This probably shouldn't matter, but the Britain is in the same state as Greece or close to it. this would be another blow to their economy if HRMC loose.....just wondering if that would influence the outcome.

[nsearle]

King - sorry for the long delay. I went into TCLL hybernation due to the lack of any substantive info of any type.

I believe that Purcell left the London market and is with another company. I will see if I can find him again. Germany sticks in my mind.

Be careful - based on yesterday's volume, news and action, lightning may be about to strike.

[nsearle]

I posted this comment in September of 2007. My calculation is still reasonable, but is dependent on 3 things: 1) legal fees don't affect the recovery of the VAT (HMRC has to pay for our defense); 2) they distribute the VAT; and 3) they don't attempt to start back up.

Posted by: nsearle Date: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:40:39 PM
In reply to: nsearle who wrote msg# 5258 Post # of 5840

If they receive their VAT refunds and distribute to shareholders - then it's worth $.233. Granted -this may take up to 3 years to realize - but with no operations there should be very limited expenses, no debt, and some potential to realize a recovery of what currently looks to be a worthless investment.

Or perhaps I'm just trying to justify my ownership?

[HobbyTrader]

Very strong here today. Held strong gains and volume was huge. Any chance of upcoming news or anything?

[trailorparkboy]

an older article. same problem we have


HMRC loses Livewire appeal (UPDATED)
After almost of year of waiting, the goverment's VAT fraud appeal against trader is dismissed
Written by Sara Yirrell
CRN, 16 Jan 2009
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has been dealt a sucker punch by the High Court over its appeal against Livewire Telecom’s VAT payment.

Originally HMRC was ordered to pay back all the withheld VAT that it had kept under its disliked ‘Extended Verification’ strategy, aimed at fighting VAT carousel fraud within mobile phone and components traders in the UK.

As a result, HMRC lodged an appeal with the High Court and had been waiting for the result of that for almost a year.

However today, the High Court dismissed HMRC’s appeal, which could send a spark of hope to all the hundreds of other traders that are waiting for money to be paid back.

At this stage it is unclear whether HMRC will lodge another appeal, but one industry expert said it will force the government to re-examine its VAT strategy.

Don Mavin, head of disputes and litigation at accountancy, tax and business advisory firm Vantis, has been working on the case along with David Scorey of Essex Court Chambers, London, and was assisted by John Day of Malletts Solicitors, London.

Mavin said: “This judgement has cleared away a lot of uncertainty and myth that has been surrounding European decisions on VAT.

“I wouldn’t say it will open the floodgates because HMRC will be reviewing this judgement in details and all cases affected by it. However, it is still a positive judgement.”

An HMRC representative sent CRN a comment which reads:

“The judgment agreed with HMRC that the correct legal test had not been applied by the tribunal and supported HMRC’s interpretation as to how the test is to be applied in practice.

"In the case of Livewire Telecom the court decided that the findings of fact by the tribunal meant that even applying the correct legal test the tribunal’s decision stands. However in the case of Olympia Technology Ltd the court found the tribunal should reconsider the case using the correct legal test.

"HMRC is right to tackle fraud in this way and will continue to make decisions to deny input tax where a trader knew or should have known that its transactions were connected with fraud and will continue to robustly defend its position in the Courts.”

Have your say
Send to a friend
Share
Print
See also:HmrcLivewireHigh-courtLegal

[trailorparkboy]

article from today

raders await VAT fraud ruling
February 18, 2010

By Devika Sen-Gupta (contact [e-mail])

Around 600 traders expect Court of Appeal case to provide clarity on UK interpretation of VAT law

A new case between four traders and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is expected to provide clarity on VAT fraud law in the UK, and make clearer the position of 600 traders with between £4 billion and £8 billion of input tax witheld by the UK Treasury.

The claims of four mobile phone and computer chip traders against HMRC will be heard in a conjoined case worth £26.6 million of witheld VAT over five days in the Court of Appeal.

The claims of traders Calltel and Opto Telelinks were heard in joint cases previously in the VAT and Duties Tribunal and the High Court, and were dismissed in both sessions.

The pair have appealed the decisions, and been combined also with trader Mobilx, which failed in the VAT and Duties Tribunal, and trader Blue Sphere Global (BSG), which won its High Court ruling; a decision now appealed by HMRC.

HMRC’s policy to stamp out missing trader intra-community (MTIC) carousel fraud presently hinges on its ‘means of knowledge’ test, which has seen it withold VAT repayments from mobile phone and computer chip traders indefinitely as it acertains whether they have run proper due diligence on their supply chains.

The ruling in the Axel Kittel case said traders should not have VAT witheld provided they have taken “every precaution which could reasonably be required of them to ensure that their transactions are not connected with fraud”.

HMRC’s subsequent ‘means of knowledge’ test has seen VAT witheld from traders for an extended period, without any legislative interpretation in place.

Dass Solicitors partner Alias Dass said: “The law has been uncertain until now because Tribunals do not bind each other, so each Tribunal to date has used different interpretations of the law which was established during the Kittle case. Both HMRC and traders require clarification.”

LHS Solicitor Daniel Berke said: “Traders are expected to find out what due diligence measures are required of them. The case will hopefully provide this clarity. Honest traders are exposed at the moment. If they are unaware that one person in the chain hasn’t paid VAT, the honest trader is getting penalised and not getting VAT repaid.

“The impact of the case is far reaching for traders and will set a standard for other traders to follow in the future.”

In the 2008 Livewire case in the Court of Appeal, won by the trader, Justice Lewison called for clearer guidelines.

He said: “In my judgment in a case of alleged contra-trading, where the taxable person claiming repayment of input tax is not himself a dishonest co-conspirator, there are two potential frauds – the dishonest failure to account for VAT by the defaulter or missing trader in the dirty chain and the dishonest cover-up of that fraud by the contra-trader.”

HMRC has said its policy has had a significant impact upon levels of MTIC fraud involving UK traders, and that its multi-pronged attack has seen annual Government losses reduced by up to £2 billion.

Most significantly, HMRC’s introduction of a reverse charge mechanism in 2007, which removed all VAT requirements from the supply chain and obliged the end-customer to pay VAT at the point of sale, has opened up trade again, and reduced the number of cases into co

[trading94]

might be a leak of info for all this volume and no drop,IMO

[trailorparkboy]

Look at their last filing on pink sheets

[trading94]

this is crazy billions at steak......if the court goes in favor then the all get piece of the money or they will all have to sue one by one to get it??

[Stock]

you are correct. i was typing in a hurry and edited my post. thanks

[trailorparkboy]

FYI


A controversial argument deployed by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to detect VAT fraud in a chain of mobile phone transactions will be tested for the first time in the Court of Appeal, starting today (February 15).

[trailorparkboy]

I thought the verdic is in march, there in trial now....

[Stock]

At trial Feb 10, decision expected in March

Posted by: Hk Fooey
Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:44:47 AM
In reply to: None Post # of 5831

£8bn is at stake in major VAT case
February 15, 2010

By Devika Sen-Gupta (contact [e-mail])

UK interpretation of Brussels' 'means of knowledge' rule to be put to test; fight for £26.6m VAT in case that could influence £8bn tax held in Treasury

A controversial argument deployed by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to detect VAT fraud in a chain of mobile phone transactions will be tested for the first time in the Court of Appeal, starting today (February 15).

The final decision could influence up to £8 billion of VAT reclaims from traders, reckon experts. The Court of Appeal hears HMRC’s case to withhold £26.6 million of combined input tax from traders Calltel, Opto Telelinks, Mobilx and Blue Sphere Global (BSG).

It will for the first time consider the UK government’s interpretation of part of the 2006 Axel Kittel ruling in the European Court of Justice. It will consider specifically HMRC’s perceived right to withhold VAT from traders under extended verification of their ‘means of knowledge’ of fraud in a supply chain.

Around 600 traders are waiting on verdicts from the VAT and Duties Tribunal still. The Treasury has withheld £4 billion-£8 billion of VAT from traders in total, according to legal experts.

An industry source close to the matter said: "Whilst the Court of Appeal is being asked to consider substantial points in relation to all three cases, it is also to consider the fundamental point that HMRC can introduce Kittel without first introducing legislation, as adopted by other EU member states. If HMRC is found to have acted in error, the UK Treasury could be liable for substantial repayments to traders."

An HMRC spokesperson said: "HMRC’s strategy has had a dramatic impact on levels of MTIC activity and subsequent losses. HMRC’s multi faceted approach has ensured losses have been kept well below their peak in 2005/06. In three years the impact of MTIC fraud on receipts per annum has been reduced by £1.5 billion-£2 billion."

Dass Solicitors partner Alias Dass (pictured top) said: "Traders are depending on this case to determine if theirs are worth fighting for."

Vantis head of tax Don Mavin (pictured bottom) said: "We anticipate the Court’s judgement will refine and clarify the way laws on fraud, means of knowledge and culpability are to be applied to such cases."

The case will be heard over a five-day period with a judgement expected in March.

[trading94]

and this is happening now?how soon we will know if they get some of the money,will they have to file suite also and go true the process,TIA

[Stock]

Around 600 traders are waiting on verdicts from the VAT and Duties Tribunal still. The Treasury has withheld £4 billion-£8 billion of VAT from traders in total, according to legal experts.

Read the post I just replied to...

[Stock]

there are 220M shares out, as far as I know.

The company hired attorneys to recover value added tax from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

There are several million pounds impounded (maybe not the right legal word) being held by the UK government -- revenue they should not be withholding from cell phone trading companies.

There was a post here earlier this week by "HKFooey" the legal team in the UK is waiting for one of the bigger fish to make a case to try their own deal for TCLL.

If one succeeds, they all win, at least that is the hope.

[trading94]

whats the story here I am trying to find out what is going on from before?

[Stock]

to be determined

[trading94]

WOW,what are the chances of anything positive and will it be paid in form of div?

[Stock]

dollars, not pennies, if the VAT recovery comes through.

[trading94]

whats in it for this stock?

[hcggroup]

Lots of potential here

[HobbyTrader]

Very strong movement so far. WOW.

[hcggroup]

Just got an alert on this one...watching it!

[HobbyTrader]

Wow, what is going on here today? Nice movement.

[jking1999]

Thanks, once again, for your update on the overall VAT situation. Hopefully the appeal goes against the government. Otherwise, there is zero hope of any return on our investments in this company.

Looking forward to your update sometime in March.

[Stock]

Thanks for the update.

[Hk Fooey]

£8bn is at stake in major VAT case
February 15, 2010

By Devika Sen-Gupta (contact [e-mail])

UK interpretation of Brussels' 'means of knowledge' rule to be put to test; fight for £26.6m VAT in case that could influence £8bn tax held in Treasury

A controversial argument deployed by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to detect VAT fraud in a chain of mobile phone transactions will be tested for the first time in the Court of Appeal, starting today (February 15).

The final decision could influence up to £8 billion of VAT reclaims from traders, reckon experts. The Court of Appeal hears HMRC’s case to withhold £26.6 million of combined input tax from traders Calltel, Opto Telelinks, Mobilx and Blue Sphere Global (BSG).

It will for the first time consider the UK government’s interpretation of part of the 2006 Axel Kittel ruling in the European Court of Justice. It will consider specifically HMRC’s perceived right to withhold VAT from traders under extended verification of their ‘means of knowledge’ of fraud in a supply chain.

Around 600 traders are waiting on verdicts from the VAT and Duties Tribunal still. The Treasury has withheld £4 billion-£8 billion of VAT from traders in total, according to legal experts.

An industry source close to the matter said: "Whilst the Court of Appeal is being asked to consider substantial points in relation to all three cases, it is also to consider the fundamental point that HMRC can introduce Kittel without first introducing legislation, as adopted by other EU member states. If HMRC is found to have acted in error, the UK Treasury could be liable for substantial repayments to traders."

An HMRC spokesperson said: "HMRC’s strategy has had a dramatic impact on levels of MTIC activity and subsequent losses. HMRC’s multi faceted approach has ensured losses have been kept well below their peak in 2005/06. In three years the impact of MTIC fraud on receipts per annum has been reduced by £1.5 billion-£2 billion."

Dass Solicitors partner Alias Dass (pictured top) said: "Traders are depending on this case to determine if theirs are worth fighting for."

Vantis head of tax Don Mavin (pictured bottom) said: "We anticipate the Court’s judgement will refine and clarify the way laws on fraud, means of knowledge and culpability are to be applied to such cases."

The case will be heard over a five-day period with a judgement expected in March.

[surfkast]

I see nothing ever happened here...

[surfkast]

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS

[surfkast]

Need HQ to update us.

[Stock]

being hit by lightning sounds good