Sanderson v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 207 (TC) (20 February 2012)

Sanderson v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 207 (TC) (20 February 2012)

The Tribunal found that the only relevant disclosure was that contained in the white space and capital gains tax pages of the appellant's 1998-99 return, which was insufficient to alert a hypothetical officer to the insufficiency of tax. Therefore, the condition in s 29(5) TMA was fulfilled, entitling HMRC to raise the discovery assessment. The appellant did not engage in negligent conduct, so s 29(4) was not fulfilled.

Citation
[2012] UKFTT 207
Parties
Appellant: David Stephen Sanderson; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Capital Gains Tax, Discovery Assessment, Taxes Management Act 1970 S29, Tax Schemes, Burden of Proof
Tax Law Capital Gains Tax Discovery Assessment Taxes Management Act 1970 S29 Tax Schemes 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Stephen Sanderson

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 'discovery' assessment under s 29 TMA was validly made
  2. 2 Whether the conditions of s 29(4) or (5) TMA were fulfilled

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the only relevant disclosure was that contained in the white space and capital gains tax pages of the appellant's 1998-99 return, which was insufficient to alert a hypothetical officer to the insufficiency of tax. Therefore, the condition in s 29(5) TMA was fulfilled, entitling HMRC to raise the discovery assessment. The appellant did not engage in negligent conduct, so s 29(4) was not fulfilled.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed