Lam (t/a Sunlight Takeaway Meals) v Revenue and Customs (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX : Appeal) [2016] UKFTT 659 (TC) (23 September 2016)

Lam (t/a Sunlight Takeaway Meals) v Revenue and Customs (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX : Appeal) [2016] UKFTT 659 (TC) (23 September 2016)

A closure notice is valid if it meets the requirements of s 28B(1)-(3) TMA; failure to amend individual partners’ returns under s 28B(4) does not invalidate the closure notice. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. On the substantive issue, the appellants failed to demonstrate that the amended profits were excessive; HMRC’s amendment, though based on imperfect information due to the appellants’ lack of cooperation, was reasonable on the balance of probabilities.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 659 (TC)
Parties
Appellants: Wong Yau Lam and Sau Yau Lam t/a Sunlight Takeaway Meals; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
23 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Income Tax/corporation Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Judgment After Hearing and Written Submissions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Partnership Taxation, Closure Notice, Tax Return Amendment, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Best Judgment Assessment
Tax Law Income Tax Partnership Taxation Closure Notice Tax Return Amendment Jurisdiction of Tribunal Best Judgment Assessment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wong Yau Lam and Sau Yau Lam t/a Sunlight Takeaway Meals

Appellants

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Income Tax/corporation Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Judgment After Hearing and Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the closure notice under s 28B TMA was effective in absence of amendment to partners’ individual returns under s28B(4)
  2. 2 Whether the amendment to the partnership return to reflect alleged unrecorded sales should stand good

Ratio Decidendi

A closure notice is valid if it meets the requirements of s 28B(1)-(3) TMA; failure to amend individual partners’ returns under s 28B(4) does not invalidate the closure notice. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. On the substantive issue, the appellants failed to demonstrate that the amended profits were excessive; HMRC’s amendment, though based on imperfect information due to the appellants’ lack of cooperation, was reasonable on the balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The closure notice dated 18 February 2015 is upheld; the amendment to the partnership return for 2006-07 stands good.