Nineham v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 428 (TC) (09 September 2010)

Nineham v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 428 (TC) (09 September 2010)

Given the inadequacy and unreliability of Mr Nineham's business records, and the inconsistencies in his explanations and supporting documents, HMRC's estimates and discovery assessments were fair and reasonable. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show the assessments were excessive or unreasonable.

Citation
[2010] UKFTT 428
Parties
Appellant: P Nineham; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
09 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Self Assessment, Discovery Assessment, Estimation of Profits, Burden of Proof
Tax Law Income Tax Self Assessment Discovery Assessment Estimation of Profits 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P Nineham

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC's discovery assessments and amendments to self-assessment were fair and reasonable given the inadequacy of the taxpayer's records
  2. 2 Whether the taxpayer discharged the burden of proof to show HMRC's figures were unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

Given the inadequacy and unreliability of Mr Nineham's business records, and the inconsistencies in his explanations and supporting documents, HMRC's estimates and discovery assessments were fair and reasonable. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show the assessments were excessive or unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Amendment to self-assessment for 2003/4 and discovery assessments for 2000/1 to 2002/3 upheld