E v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 7 October 2024

Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 890 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 was an appeal by Mr E against HMRC discovery assessments for 2000/01–2018/19 and associated penalties where he had kept no tax records and made no returns or notifications. The Tribunal found HMRC had made valid discoveries, that their turnover estimates based on bank records with extrapolated overheads were reasonable and not displaced by Mr E’s limited evidence, and that his conduct was deliberate (but not concealed) so the amended assessments and penalties totalling £158,979.39 were upheld.

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 taxpayer has kept no contemporaneous records, HMRC may validly rely on bank records and make reasonable estimates of turnover, adjusting for identifiable non-trading items and extrapolating limited invoice evidence across periods; longstanding failure to notify or file and the absence of reasonable enquiries can support findings of negligence and justify penalties for deliberate (but unconcealed) non‑compliance.

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 observed that certain estimation techniques — for example extrapolating overheads by reference to RPI, or using one premises’ trading data to estimate a second premises’ income (even by doubling where acquisition timing warrants) — may be reasonable and potentially generous; and that industry benchmarks or third‑party software cannot discharge a taxpayer’s burden without contemporaneous supporting records.