R Islam v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 170 (TC) (17 June 2022) was an appeal against discovery assessments, with total tax of £293,403.90 at stake. Anybody who has been involved in revenue investigations will know that the parties’ recollections of what has been said at meetings with HMRC can be very different: HMRC usually prepare notes of meetings, but many advisers suggest to their clients that the notes are not countersigned. What was said in a meeting was critical in this case: the client had gone to the trouble of producing a professional transcription of the meeting and at several key points this was at odds with HMRC’s meeting notes. Ultimately the case was decided on burden of proof. As the judge said: neither party ‘proved’ their case but as the burden was on HMRC to show that there had been deliberate or careless behaviour the taxpayer’s appeal was allowed and the assessments were discharged in full. All involved in tax investigations will find much to ponder on in this judgement. Read the decision.
R Islam v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 170 (TC) (17 June 2022) was an appeal against discovery assessments, with total tax of £293,403.90 at stake. Anybody who has been involved in revenue investigations will know that the parties’ recollections of what has been said at meetings with HMRC can be very different: HMRC usually prepare notes of meetings, but many advisers suggest to their clients that the notes are not countersigned. What was said in a meeting was critical in this case: the client had gone to the trouble of producing a professional transcription of the meeting and at several key points this was at odds with HMRC’s meeting notes. Ultimately the case was decided on burden of proof. As the judge said: neither party ‘proved’ their case but as the burden was on HMRC to show that there had been deliberate or careless behaviour the taxpayer’s appeal was allowed and the assessments were discharged in full. All involved in tax investigations will find much to ponder on in this judgement. Read the decision.
