Kondrat-Wilk v The Commissioner for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2022] UKFTT 342 (TC) (14 September 2022)

Kondrat-Wilk v The Commissioner for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2022] UKFTT 342 (TC) (14 September 2022)

The appeal was struck out because there was no realistic prospect of the appellant establishing that expenditure was incurred for the purposes of section 34 ITTOIA 2005. The appellant failed to provide any credible or consistent evidence of payment or liability, and the arguments advanced were contradictory and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] UKFTT 342
Parties
Appellant: Dr Katarzyna Kondrat-Wilk; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Strike Out Application
Outcome
Appeal struck out
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Self Assessment, Business Expenses, Remuneration Trusts, Deductibility of Expenses, Burden of Proof, Strike Out Applications
Tax Law Income Tax Self Assessment Business Expenses Remuneration Trusts Deductibility of Expenses Burden of Proof Strike Out Applications

Source-derived case record

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Katarzyna Kondrat-Wilk

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's appeal has a reasonable prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether expenditure was incurred for the purposes of section 34 ITTOIA 2005
  3. 3 Whether contributions to a remuneration trust are deductible business expenses

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was struck out because there was no realistic prospect of the appellant establishing that expenditure was incurred for the purposes of section 34 ITTOIA 2005. The appellant failed to provide any credible or consistent evidence of payment or liability, and the arguments advanced were contradictory and unsupported by documentation. The Tribunal found that oral evidence or witness statements would not remedy the fundamental lack of evidence, and that the burden of proof was not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck out

Orders

  • The application to strike out the appeal is granted under Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009.
  • If the appeals were not formally consolidated, appeal TC/2020/80626 is also struck out.