Mr John Cooksey and Mrs Christine Cooksey v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Decision date: 21 October 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 275 (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 multiple HMRC discovery assessments against the Cookseys for undeclared cash sales and offshore investments. The First-tier Tribunal found the Cookseys and their witness not credible, held the taxpayers had not discharged the burden of proof that the assessments were excessive, and concluded HMRC had made a sufficient "discovery", so the appeals were dismissed and the assessments stood.
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
The tribunal held that in appeals against discovery assessments the statutory burden remains on the taxpayer under s.50(6) TMA to prove an assessment excessive, and that allegations of fraud do not shift that burden; the civil standard (balance of probabilities) applies. On the facts the tribunal also found sufficient evidence to amount to a "discovery" for the purposes of the TMA and therefore the assessments were valid.
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 decision noted (obiter) that the Hansard procedure is intended to encourage full disclosure and, except in exceptional cases, not to lead to prosecution, and that promises made in Hansard do not automatically prevent use of evidence given falsely. It also observed that charging statutory interest under s.86 TMA is an arithmetic, non‑criminal mechanism and does not engage Article 6 criminal guarantees.