Reference

Compliance References

A curated reference of the primary legislation, HMRC guidance, case law, and professional sources that govern reasonable care and “knew or should have known” liability in the Construction Industry Scheme.

This page is maintained by the Tax Radar team and updated as new guidance or case law is published. If you spot something missing, contact us and we will add it.

A note on linking out

We publish this page because the law and guidance behind the April 2026 CIS changes are public, and contractors defending themselves under the new regime should be able to read the source material directly. We are not a substitute for legal advice. Where a specific issue affects your business, consult a qualified tax adviser or solicitor.


Primary Legislation

The statutory framework for the new CIS regime sits in the Finance Act 2004, as amended by the Finance Act 2026. The pre-2026 framework remains relevant for historical periods and for terms that were not amended.

  • Finance Act 2004, sections 62A and 62B (inserted by section 220 of the Finance Act 2026, in force from 6 April 2026): joint and several liability of 20% of relevant payments where the contractor knew or should have known that a payment was connected to the fraudulent evasion of tax (s.62A(1)(b)).
  • Finance Act 2004, sections 72A to 72C (penalties for facilitating CIS supply chain fraud, inserted by the Finance Act 2026). legislation.gov.uk
  • Finance Act 2004, section 66(3A) (cancellation of gross payment status in fraud-connected cases, inserted by the Finance Act 2026). legislation.gov.uk
  • Finance Act 2004, Chapter 3, Part 3 (the original Construction Industry Scheme statutory framework).
  • Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/2045). The detailed operating regulations, including verification, payment, and reporting requirements.

For consolidated current text, legislation.gov.uk is the canonical source.

HMRC Guidance

HMRC’s published guidance is the primary public statement of how the rules are administered. The Guidelines for Compliance series is particularly important because it sets out HMRC’s expectations of reasonable care in specific sectors.

HMRC Manuals

The internal HMRC manuals are public and set out, in detail, how HMRC officers approach individual issues. They are not law, but they are the strongest available indication of how a case will be handled in practice.


Key Case Law

The “knew or should have known” test originates in case law and now appears on the face of the statute at s.62A(1)(b) FA 2004. The cases below built the test that the statutory words carry. The cases below are the foundation of the test that construction will now be judged against. Most are available in full on BAILII.

European foundation

  • Kittel v Belgian State (Joined Cases C-439/04 and C-440/04, CJEU, 2006). The originating authority for the “knew or should have known” principle in VAT.
  • Mecsek-Gabona Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal (Case C-273/11, CJEU, 2012). Extends Kittel to intra-community supplies and clarifies the duty of enquiry on suppliers.

UK authorities

  • Mobilx Ltd (in administration) v HMRC [2010] EWCA Civ 517. The leading UK authority on the application of Kittel; sets out the test the UK courts apply.
  • Davis & Dann Ltd v HMRC [2016] EWCA Civ 142. Refines the “should have known” limb; clarifies what level of enquiry is expected of a commercial purchaser.
  • Fonecomp Ltd v HMRC [2015] EWCA Civ 39. The “constructive knowledge” limb; deals with whether a trader should have known there was no reasonable explanation for the transactions other than fraud.
  • Citibank NA and another v HMRC [2017] UKUT 0233. The standard of proof, the role of objective evidence, and the weight given to contemporaneous records.
  • CCA Distribution Ltd v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1899. The application of Kittel to large, sophisticated businesses; what an objectively reasonable trader is expected to know.

Construction-specific

Construction-specific case law on the new s.62A/62B framework is still emerging. We will list cases here as they are decided and reported. For background on construction tax disputes, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax) decisions database is searchable.


Professional and Regulatory Bodies

The professional bodies below publish guidance, hold technical updates, and run forums where CIS reform is actively debated. They are useful references for contractors, advisers, and procurement teams alike.

Tax

Construction industry

Regulators

Official Registers

  • Companies House. The statutory register of UK companies and directors; the data source behind Tax Radar’s forensic history and phoenixism checks.
  • HMRC CIS Verification Service. The live API behind Tax Radar’s HMRC CIS verification module.
  • Charity Commission for England and Wales (where charitable subcontractors are engaged).
  • Insolvency Service. The register of disqualified directors and bankruptcy orders.

Trade Press

CIS reform is being covered actively in the trade press. The titles below are the ones most commonly read by procurement, finance, and supply chain leaders in UK construction.


Tax Radar’s Own Publications

For analysis from the Tax Radar team on how these rules apply in practice:

This page is for information only. It is not, and does not purport to be, legal or tax advice. The inclusion of an external source does not constitute endorsement of that source.

Last reviewed: 19 July 2026

See the Standards Applied in Practice

CIS Defence implements the due diligence framework set out in GfC12 and refined by the Kittel case law — continuously, automatically, and with a documented audit trail.