Bookey v Rowlands (HM Inspector of Taxes)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 October 1981 |
| Date | 27 October 1981 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Chancery Division.
The taxpayer appeared on his own behalf.
Mr. M. Hart (instructed by the Solicitor of Inland Revenue) for the Crown.
Before: Walton J.
Income tax - Notice of liability to pay tax not given - Assessments made by Inspector - Taxpayer's trade incorrectly described in assessments - Whether assessments valid - No evidence as to income and reimbursement produced before Commissioners - Whether decision of Commissioners erroneous in point of law - Taxes Management Act 1970 - Taxes Management Act 1970 section 7 subsec-or-para (1)sec. 7(1);Taxes Management Act 1970 section 50 subsec-or-para (6)50(6); Taxes Management Act 1970 section 56 subsec-or-para (1)56(1).
The taxpayer was employed by one firm as a motor delivery agent during the fiscal years 1976/77 to 1979/80 inclusive. He failed to give notice of his liability to pay tax on the payments received for that work and the Inspector issued assessments for those years. In those assessments his trade was described as a "cab driver".
The taxpayer appealed to the General Commissioners against both the validity of those assessments and the amounts of the profits shown therein. The taxpayer submitted his returns to the Inspector on the day before the Commissioners' hearing (which had been postponed twice). The Inspector did not accept the figures put forward as he was uncertain whether the taxpayer had been employed by more than one firm, and because the reimbursement amounts claimed were not backed by documentary evidence. The taxpayer produced no written evidence before the Commissioners of the amounts received as income and the amounts received as reimbursement of expenses incurred by him. The Commissioners rejected a claim that the incorrect description of the taxpayer's trade invalidated the assessments, accepted that he had no other employment and estimated the profits derived by the taxpayer at approximately half of the amounts set out in the Inspector's assessments.
The taxpayer appealed from the decision of the Commissioners.
Held, appeal dismissed.
1. The difference in the description of the trade between motor delivery agent and cab driver was not sufficient to render the assessments bad. That misdescription did not represent any matter of substance and was unlikely to have led to any difficulty in knowing which trade was the subject of the assessments.
2. There was no written evidence produced to the Commissioners by the appellant, particularly in relation to amounts which he claimed to be reimbursements of expenses. On the material available to them the Commissioner's decision was not incorrect in law and can not, therefore, be overruled.
Walton J.: I have a very uncomfortable feeling that it is possible that something may have gone wrong in this case for which the Appellant himself, Mr. Bookey, is not at any rate entirely to blame, but so far as the law is concerned the matter is in fact crystal clear. Mr. Bookey is a person who is a motor delivery agent employed apparently by one firm and one firm only, the firm of Daniel Hustings Ltd., and he does a certain amount of work for them. I say he does a certain amount of work for them because in the relevant years with which we are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daisley
...alternative figures had been suggested by the appellant. In that connection the appellant placed reliance on Bookey v Edwards (HMIT) [1982] BTC 21 at p. 25. The Commissioners are required to make their own judgement, however difficult that might be. Senior counsel also relied on Khawaja v E......
-
Icebreaker 1 LLP v HMRC
...Civ 1010; [2009] BTC 631 Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v MawsonTAXELR [2004] BTC 414; [2005] 1 AC 684 Bookey v RowlandsTAX [1982] BTC 21 Edwards v BairstowELRTAX [1956] AC 14; 36 TC 207 Ensign Tankers (Leasing) Ltd v StokesTAXELR [1992] BTC 110; [1992] 1 AC 655 Investors Compensa......
-
Lam and Another (t/a Sunlight Takeaway Meals)
...which the assessments would have required to have been reduced accordingly. As was recognised by Walton J in Bookey v Rowlands (HMIT) TAX[1982] BTC 21 at p. 24, that might have required commissioners to make the best estimate that they could in the face of an unsatisfactory evidential posit......
-
Gjoci
...card statements, chequebook stubs, motoring expenses and mileage records, and accounting records.[42] In Bookey v Rowlands (HMIT) TAX[1982] BTC 21 Mr Justice Walton states:there is no doubt, pursuant to section 50(6) of Taxes Management Act 1970, that the onus is very much upon an appellant......