Voong v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 317 (TC) (08 July 2010)

Voong v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 317 (TC) (08 July 2010)

Mr Voong failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that HMRC's revised figures were incorrect. The BEE methodology was reasonable in the absence of adequate records. The discovery assessments and closure notices were validly raised due to negligent conduct. There was no evidence of racism or prejudice by HMRC.

Citation
[2010] UKFTT 317
Parties
Appellant: Mr KY Sinh Voong; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
08 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Self Assessment Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Self Assessment, Discovery Assessments, Business Records, 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr KY Sinh Voong

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Self Assessment Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Final Decision

  1. 1 Whether Mr Voong underdeclared business takings for income tax purposes
  2. 2 Whether HMRC's discovery assessments and closure notices were valid
  3. 3 Whether the presumption of continuity and business economics exercise (BEE) methodology were properly applied

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Voong failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that HMRC's revised figures were incorrect. The BEE methodology was reasonable in the absence of adequate records. The discovery assessments and closure notices were validly raised due to negligent conduct. There was no evidence of racism or prejudice by HMRC.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All appeals are dismissed
  • HMRC's revised assessments and closure notices are upheld as set out in paragraph 5