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 the appellant failed to provide any credible or contemporaneous documentary evidence that expenditure was incurred for the claimed deductions. The explanations were contradictory, and the only evidence offered was oral testimony many years after the events, which the Tribunal found...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] UKFTT 342 (TC)
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 Under Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (first Tier Tribunal) (tax Chamber) Rules 2009
Outcome
Appeal struck out
Legal Topics
Income Tax Deductions, Discovery Assessments, Closure Notices, Remuneration Trusts, Burden of Proof, Strike Out Applications, Evidentiary Requirements
Tax Law Civil Procedure Income Tax Deductions Discovery Assessments Closure Notices Remuneration Trusts Burden of Proof Strike Out Applications +1 more

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 3 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 Under Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (first Tier Tribunal) (tax Chamber) Rules 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant incurred deductible business expenses for contributions to a remuneration trust under section 34 ITTOIA 2005
  2. 2 Whether the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success in the absence of documentary evidence
  3. 3 Whether oral evidence or witness statements could remedy evidentiary deficiencies

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to provide any credible or contemporaneous documentary evidence that expenditure was incurred for the claimed deductions. The explanations were contradictory, and the only evidence offered was oral testimony many years after the events, which the Tribunal found would not remedy the evidentiary deficiencies. The Tribunal held there was no reasonable prospect of success, as required by Rule 8(3)(c), and that the burden of proof was not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck out

Orders

  • The appeal TC/2020/01315 is struck out 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.