Mohammed Naseemdost v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 9 August 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 703 (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 challenged a personal liability notice issued to Mr Mohammed Naseemdost under Schedule 24 FA 2007, arising from HMRC best-judgment VAT assessments against Aglow Fashions Ltd for underdeclared output tax. The Tribunal accepted HMRC's methodology given deficient company records, found the return inaccuracies were deliberate and concealed, attributed that conduct to Mr Naseemdost as an officer, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the PLN for £271,251.60.

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

Where a company's underlying records are deficient and an officer prepared or supplied invoices and signed VAT returns, a best-judgment assessment based on available material may be upheld if the taxpayer cannot produce reliable alternative evidence; deliberate and concealed inaccuracies for Schedule 24 purposes can be established where an officer knowingly provides or withholds documents (including invoices) so that returns are inaccurate and the conduct is concealed.

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 indicated that an internal schedule found later can be treated as evidence even if the appellant disclaims it when it appears to have been prepared from the appellant's documents, and that admissions or undertakings in separate director disqualification proceedings may be relevant to credibility though they do not automatically validate HMRC's quantified figures.