In J Evans v HMRC (TC00446 – 22 April) a former tax inspector (E) was appointed as Clerk to three divisions of the General Commissioners. In his returns he claimed significant deductions for travelling and secretarial assistance (provided by his wife). In 2005 HMRC began an investigation into his returns and formed the opinion that E had significantly overstated his expenses. They issued discovery assessments under TMA 1970 s 29 and imposed penalties under TMA 1970 s 95 at the rate of 35% of the evaded tax. E appealed. the First-Tier Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and observed that E had failed to produce documentary records and 'surprisingly given his background did not co-operate fully with the enquiry'. The Tribunal held that despite E's failure to discharge 'the burden of proof on him...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In J Evans v HMRC (TC00446 – 22 April) a former tax inspector (E) was appointed as Clerk to three divisions of the General Commissioners. In his returns he claimed significant deductions for travelling and secretarial assistance (provided by his wife). In 2005 HMRC began an investigation into his returns and formed the opinion that E had significantly overstated his expenses. They issued discovery assessments under TMA 1970 s 29 and imposed penalties under TMA 1970 s 95 at the rate of 35% of the evaded tax. E appealed. the First-Tier Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and observed that E had failed to produce documentary records and 'surprisingly given his background did not co-operate fully with the enquiry'. The Tribunal held that despite E's failure to discharge 'the burden of proof on him...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
