Pervez Akhtar v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 2 April 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 395 (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 challenged HMRC discovery assessments for 2006/07–2017/18 based on unexplained bank and property deposits alleged to be undeclared income from taxi companies. The Tribunal held HMRC’s discovery (27 Aug 2020) was valid, found unexplained deposits of £220,131.83 representing deliberate undeclared extractions (so 20‑year limit applied), but accepted that some property payments were funded by third parties and that certain properties were held on trust for the appellant and his wife, allowing the appeal in part and reducing HMRC’s original case. Parties were invited to agree precise taxable amounts or return to the Tribunal.
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: medium
A discovery by an HMRC officer is valid if the officer, acting honestly and reasonably, newly forms the view that there is an insufficiency and that view is one a reasonable officer could form from the available material; where unexplained bank deposits lack contemporaneous third‑party documentary support, the taxpayer bears the balance‑of‑probabilities burden to show they were not taxable income, and failure to do so permits treating them as undeclared income.
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 (obiter) that prior administrative delay by HMRC in holding material does not automatically invalidate a later genuine discovery, and that discrepancies in mortgage applications or apparent mortgage‑broker frauds do not conclusively establish tax intent without corroboration.