Market leading insight for tax experts
View online issue

Private client review for May 2023

The burden of proof as regards the taxpayer behaviour, late appeals and cautionary tales for IHT planning are among the topics featuring in this month’s review by Edward Reed and Tristan Honeyborne (Macfarlanes).

Carelessness and deliberate behaviour: the burden of proof

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:

Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.
EDITOR'S PICKstar
Top