Marcin Daniel Cajdler v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 14 September 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 343 (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 case concerns HMRC's application to strike out Dr Marcin Cajdler's appeal against discovery assessments and penalties for large "Other Business Expenses" claimed via an alleged remuneration trust/PMC arrangement. The Tribunal found the appellant's case lacked credible contemporaneous documentary or bank evidence, and that his explanations had shifted over time, so there was no realistic prospect of proving expenditure was incurred. The Tribunal rejected that EU‑law arguments or late witness statements could cure the core evidential defects and granted HMRC's strike out application.
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 relies on claimed deductions, the appeal must be supported by credible contemporaneous evidence that expenditure was actually incurred; if there is an absence of such evidence and the account has materially changed or is contradictory, the claim has no realistic prospect of success and may be struck out under Rule 8(3)(c). Further late-produced oral evidence or broad legal arguments will not justify permitting an appeal to proceed where the foundational factual evidence is lacking.
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 extensive EU‑law arguments about the construction of "wholly and exclusively" would not rescue an appeal that fails on the primary factual question of whether expenditure was incurred. It also commented that parol/oral evidence prepared long after events, particularly where the appellant's explanations have shifted, is of limited weight in overcoming documentary deficiencies.