Two recent cases with contrasting results show the importance of clear evidence in discharging the burden of proof as regards the taxpayer’s standard of behaviour.
In Danapal v HMRC [2023] UKUT 86 (TCC) the Upper Tribunal (UT) held that the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had made several errors of law in determining that HMRC had satisfied the burden of proving that the taxpayer (or someone acting on their behalf) had acted carelessly or deliberately. In this case HMRC had issued discovery assessments against the taxpayer a doctor relating to omitted income and overstated expenses which had been upheld by the FTT. The UT reviewed the...
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:
Two recent cases with contrasting results show the importance of clear evidence in discharging the burden of proof as regards the taxpayer’s standard of behaviour.
In Danapal v HMRC [2023] UKUT 86 (TCC) the Upper Tribunal (UT) held that the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had made several errors of law in determining that HMRC had satisfied the burden of proving that the taxpayer (or someone acting on their behalf) had acted carelessly or deliberately. In this case HMRC had issued discovery assessments against the taxpayer a doctor relating to omitted income and overstated expenses which had been upheld by the FTT. The UT reviewed the...
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: