Munden v Revenue & Customs (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX Exemptions and reliefs) [2013] UKFTT 427 (TC) (08 August 2013)

Munden v Revenue & Customs (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX Exemptions and reliefs) [2013] UKFTT 427 (TC) (08 August 2013)

The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the Porsche 911 met the statutory requirements of a pool car under s 167 ITEPA for any of the relevant tax years, due to lack of evidence regarding dates, users, and purposes of use. Consequently, the car and fuel benefits are taxable.

Citation
[2013] UKFTT 427
Parties
Appellant: Derek Munden; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
08 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Closure Notices and Revenue Assessments (tax Liability for Car and Fuel Benefits) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Employment Benefits, Car and Fuel Benefit, Pool Car Exemption, Burden of Proof
Tax Law Income Tax Employment Benefits Car and Fuel Benefit Pool Car Exemption 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derek Munden

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Closure Notices and Revenue Assessments (tax Liability for Car and Fuel Benefits) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Porsche 911 was a pool car within the meaning of s 167 ITEPA for the relevant tax years
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is liable to tax on car and fuel benefits

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the Porsche 911 met the statutory requirements of a pool car under s 167 ITEPA for any of the relevant tax years, due to lack of evidence regarding dates, users, and purposes of use. Consequently, the car and fuel benefits are taxable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed