Cutmore v Leach
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 October 1981 |
| Date | 26 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 - Onus of proof - Commissioners not satisfied with accounts - Whether any error in point of law - Taxes Management Act 1970 section 50 subsec-or-para (6) section 50 subsec-or-para (7)Taxes Management Act 1970 - sec. 50(6), (7); Taxes Management Act 1970 section 56 subsec-or-para (1)56(1).
This was an appeal by the taxpayer against the decision of the General Commissioners confirming further assessments for 1975/76, 1976/77 and 1977/78 and increasing a first assessment for 1978/79. The decision of the Commissioners resulted from their dissatisfaction with the accounts submitted by the taxpayer.
The taxpayer claimed that his accounts had been prepared by the same firm of chartered accountants for approximately 20 years and he had believed that these could be relied on. He further claimed that he would have requested a postponement of the Commissioner's hearing had he understood the procedure. (He had arrived at the hearing without his glasses and without any evidence.)
Held, appeal dismissed.
1. Taxes Management Act 1970 section 50 subsec-or-para (6) section 50 subsec-or-para (7)Section 50(6) and (7) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 provides that the onus was on the taxpayer to displace the three further assessments and on the Inspector of Taxes in relation to the assessment for the 1978/79 year. The appeal could be determined in the taxpayer's favour only if the Commissioner's decision was shown to have been erroneous in point of law.
2. Although the taxpayer believed his accounts could be relied upon, they were annotated as having been prepared from his own records and as not having been audited. Accordingly, they were able to be challenged by the Inspector of Taxes.
3. Letters sent to the taxpayer had clearly advised him of the basis of the Crown's case and of the necessity for him to produce evidence to disprove the assessments. He produced neither evidence nor witnesses and the Commissioners did not err in law in making their determinations on the assessments in issue.
Walton J.: This is an appeal by Mr. Cutmore against the decision of the General Commissioners for the Purposes of Income Tax for the Division of Blackheath in Greater London on the 13th November, 1980, upon Mr. Cutmore's appeal against four assessments. They were further assessments for 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78, and a first assessment for 1978-79. As regards the first three of those assessments it is I think...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glaxo Group Ltd and Others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
...AC 1082; [1985] BTC 248 Clinch v IR Commrs ELR[1974] QB 76 Congreve v IR Commrs TAX(1948) 30 TC 163 Cutmore v Leach (HMIT) TAXTAX(1981) 55 TC 602; (1982) BTC 8 Essex & Ors v IR Commrs & Anor TAX(1980) 53 TC 720 General Commrs for City of London Commrs v Gibbs ELR[1942] AC 402 Hallamshire In......
-
University of Essex
...[1998] BVC 270 East End Dwellings Co Ltd v Finsbury Borough Council ELR [1952] AC 109 IR Commrs v Metrolands (Property Finance) LtdTAX [1982] BTC 8,032 Kretztechnik AG v Finanzamt Linz ECASVAT (Case C-465/03) [2006] BVC 66 Oxfam v R & C CommrsVAT [2010] BVC 108 Group registration - Universi......
-
Mink and Others v HM Inspector of Taxes
...of Inland Revenue v Sir Kenneth Berrill and Gumb 55 TC 429 and the case of Lord Inglewood and Another v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] BTC 8,063. Those cases however were directed to applying a liberal construction to the provisions of a statute, not to the words of speeches of the Hou......
-
Kudehinbu v Cutts (HM Inspector of Taxes)
...amounts set out in the schedule of assessments. The commissioners were referred by the inspector to the case ofCutmore v Leach (HMIT) TAX[1982] BTC 8. The commissioners found that the method apparently used by the Revenue in calculating the figures was fair and in accordance with their usua......