Katarzyna Kondrat-Wilk v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 14 September 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 342 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned whether Dr Katarzyna Kondrat‑Wilk could deduct large “Other Business Expenses” claimed as contributions to a remuneration trust; HMRC applied to strike out the appeal for having no realistic prospect of success. The tribunal found there was no credible, contemporaneous evidence that the alleged trust contributions were paid, the appellant’s explanations were inconsistent and evolved, and further particulars or witness statements were unlikely to cure the evidential deficiency. The tribunal granted HMRC’s strike‑out application and struck out the appeal.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where a necessary factual element of an appeal (here, that expenditure was actually incurred) cannot realistically be proved on the documentary record and the history of disclosure, the tribunal may strike out the appeal under Rule 8(3)(c). Repeated, materially inconsistent explanations and absence of contemporaneous supporting documents can justify summary disposal when further particulars or witness evidence are unlikely to remedy the evidential gap.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal noted (obiter) that arguments about EU‑law reconceptualisation of the “wholly and exclusively” test, reliance on commonly used commercial schemes, or on post‑event “tidying up” documents do not relieve an appellant of the need to establish primary facts; such legal or policy arguments need not be decided where factual proof is lacking.