Philip Gutmanovich Ravicher v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 5 December 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 454 (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 the appellant's application to postpone payment of £241,388 assessed by HMRC following COP8 jeopardy amendments for 2016/17. The appellant relied on a capital/loan and agency payment narrative to claim remittances were non-taxable, but the Tribunal found contemporaneous bank records, KYC and treaty materials indicated trading receipts and substantial taxable remittances. The Tribunal refused postponement, finding the appellant had not shown reasonable grounds to believe he was overcharged.
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
For the purpose of postponement under TMA s55(3) an appellant must show reasonable grounds (not fanciful) for believing the tax is overcharged and those grounds must be supported by some firm evidential basis; assertions unsupported by credible contemporaneous documentation will not meet that threshold. Where contemporaneous bank records, KYC and third‑party treaty evidence consistently indicate trading receipts and remittances, a retrospective capital/loan explanation lacking corroboration will not constitute reasonable grounds for postponement.
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 that discrepancies between representations made to banks and to HMRC and unexplained inconsistencies in documentary evidence (for example, agency agreement dates and company names) can undermine credibility. It also observed that an Outline Disclosure given to avoid penalties and estimating a banded amount does not prevent HMRC from later producing evidence of larger remittances.