Miltine v Revenue and Customs (INCOME TAX - whether deposits and transfers into Appellant's bank accounts were income) [2021] UKFTT 108 (TC) (13 April 2021)

Miltine v Revenue and Customs (INCOME TAX - whether deposits and transfers into Appellant's bank accounts were income) [2021] UKFTT 108 (TC) (13 April 2021)

The Tribunal found that Ms Miltine's explanations for the unexplained deposits were not credible and that she was trading in used motor vehicles without declaring the income. The omission of £4,237 was careless, and the unexplained cash deposits were omitted deliberately but not concealed. The penalties imposed by HMRC were correct in law, with the penalty for the deliberate omission reduced to £5,990.19 and the penalty for the careless omission suspended subject to conditions.

Citation
[2021] UKFTT 108
Parties
Appellant: Erlinga Miltine; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
13 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; assessments to be reduced; penalties correctly imposed for deliberate behaviour.
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Unexplained Bank Deposits, Penalties for Deliberate Behaviour, Self Assessment Amendments, Suspension of Penalties
Tax Law Income Tax Unexplained Bank Deposits Penalties for Deliberate Behaviour Self Assessment Amendments Suspension of Penalties

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erlinga Miltine

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deposits and transfers into Appellant's bank accounts were taxable income
  2. 2 Whether omission of income was deliberate or careless
  3. 3 Correctness of penalties imposed

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that Ms Miltine's explanations for the unexplained deposits were not credible and that she was trading in used motor vehicles without declaring the income. The omission of £4,237 was careless, and the unexplained cash deposits were omitted deliberately but not concealed. The penalties imposed by HMRC were correct in law, with the penalty for the deliberate omission reduced to £5,990.19 and the penalty for the careless omission suspended subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; assessments to be reduced; penalties correctly imposed for deliberate behaviour.

Orders

  • Penalty for deliberate omission reduced to £5,990.19 and not suspended.
  • Penalty for careless omission (£193.52) suspended until 5 April 2022 subject to conditions.