Daniel John Currie v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 3 December 2009

Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 342 (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 appeal concerned Mr Currie's VAT registration from 1 April 1996 and a subsequent assessment of £42,257 for the period 1 April 1996 to 31 August 2002. The Tribunal found no binding settlement or agreement with Customs that precluded the assessment and held the Commissioners' scaled assessment—based on inadequate records and the appellant's own declared/estimated turnover—was justified. The appeals against liability to register and against the assessment were dismissed and the assessment 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

A time-to-pay arrangement or similar correspondence does not, by itself, constitute acceptance or compromise of a taxpayer's declared figures and does not preclude the authority from raising a later assessment. Where a taxpayer's records are wholly inadequate, the authority may make an assessment based on its best judgment using available evidence, including the taxpayer's own declared estimates.

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 accepting some of the appellant's alternative factual points (for example, fewer drivers or certain mileage deductions) would have reduced the assessed amount only marginally. It also noted that a taxpayer's mere belief that a settlement was reached is insufficient to establish a binding agreement without documentary or factual support.

Warning

Chunk contains substantial repetition of the same passages.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML