Daniel v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 173 (TC) (10 February 2014)

Daniel v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 173 (TC) (10 February 2014)

The appellant failed to prove that his employment duties were performed full-time abroad for the whole of the tax year 1999-2000. The Tribunal found significant periods where full-time work abroad was not credible, and substantive duties were performed in the UK. The appellant or his agents made the non-residence claim without adequate review of the facts, amounting to negligent conduct. Therefore, the discovery assessment was valid and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2014] UKFTT 173
Parties
Appellant: Paul Daniel; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Capital Gains Tax, Tax Residence, Discovery Assessment, Negligent Conduct, Employment Abroad
Tax Law Capital Gains Tax Tax Residence Discovery Assessment Negligent Conduct Employment Abroad

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Daniel

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was non-UK resident for the tax year 1999-2000 by virtue of full-time work abroad
  2. 2 Whether the appellant or his agents were guilty of negligent conduct in filing the tax return and claiming non-UK residence, thus validating an otherwise out-of-time assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove that his employment duties were performed full-time abroad for the whole of the tax year 1999-2000. The Tribunal found significant periods where full-time work abroad was not credible, and substantive duties were performed in the UK. The appellant or his agents made the non-residence claim without adequate review of the facts, amounting to negligent conduct. Therefore, the discovery assessment was valid and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The discovery assessment stands; appellant is liable for the assessed tax.