Goudie v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 552 (TC) (05 November 2010)

Goudie v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 552 (TC) (05 November 2010)

The appellant failed to provide a satisfactory or convincing explanation for the source of the disputed deposits in the Woolwich account. The evidence did not support the claim that the funds were non-taxable gifts or proceeds from sales unrelated to business income. HMRC was justified in treating the deposits as undeclared income, extrapolating for other years, and imposing penalties for negligence. The appellant did not discharge the burden of proof to displace the assessments or penalties.

Citation
[2010] UKFTT 552
Parties
Appellant: Anthony Goudie; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
05 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Self Assessment, Discovery Assessments, Penalties, Negligence, Burden of Proof
Tax Law Income Tax Self Assessment Discovery Assessments Penalties Negligence Burden of Proof

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Goudie

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant under-declared taxable income for the relevant tax years
  2. 2 Whether HMRC was justified in issuing discovery assessments and penalties based on alleged negligence
  3. 3 Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proof to displace the assessments and penalties

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to provide a satisfactory or convincing explanation for the source of the disputed deposits in the Woolwich account. The evidence did not support the claim that the funds were non-taxable gifts or proceeds from sales unrelated to business income. HMRC was justified in treating the deposits as undeclared income, extrapolating for other years, and imposing penalties for negligence. The appellant did not discharge the burden of proof to displace the assessments or penalties.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Amendments to self-assessment returns for years ended 5 April 2005 and 5 April 2006 confirmed
  • Discovery assessments for years ended 5 April 2003 and 5 April 2004 confirmed