David Dean t/a The George & Dragon v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 30 November 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 613 (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 a VAT assessment for 28 June 2007–31 August 2008 against David Dean t/a The George & Dragon after HMRC, finding the business records rudimentary and unreliable, recalculated input tax and made a "best of judgment" assessment fixing VAT due at £3,438. The appellant produced various documents and explanations (including pint-for-pint sheets, claims of staff theft and gambling winnings) but the tribunal found them insufficiently reliable to rebut HMRC's assessment. The tribunal accepted HMRC's recalculated figures, dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay HMRC's costs for a missed hearing on 10 August 2010.
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's VAT records are incomplete or unreliable, HMRC may make an assessment to the best of its judgment based on available material, and a tribunal will not overturn such a "best of judgment" assessment absent evidence that HMRC acted dishonestly, arbitrarily or without any material on which to base the judgment.
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 suggested that taxpayers trading from public premises should have reasonable procedures for receiving and recording business correspondence, and that unsubstantiated personal explanations (for example, claims of gambling winnings or theft) carry little weight without corroborative evidence.