TC09644 ****** - [2025] UKFTT 01121 (TC)

We found CD to be a straightforward and honest witness who answered directly all the questions put to her. Several of those questions involved asking her who signed certain documents which bore her father’s signature. In response she stated that either (i) she signed the documents herself; or (ii) she got her father to put his name on the document, with her father not understanding the contents of the documents. HMRC say if this is to be believed she is not an honest person and therefore her evidence should be approached with caution. We do not accept HMRC’s argument on this point. Whilst we do not in any way wish to minimise the seriousness of these actions, viewing them in context we accept that she was doing what she thought was the best to “keep everything together” in the very difficult circumstances of her father’s illness. We do not consider it represents a dishonest nature. To the contrary, in admitting this it shows her honesty in seeking to present a full and honest account to the Tribunal.

Her choices were unwise and contrary to proper legal procedure – she should have sought to be her father’s controller at an earlier date. However, there is no suggestion that she acted for personal gain or with any intent to deceive for her own benefit. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that her overriding motivation was to ensure stability and continuity for her father and the family as a whole.

Her frankness in admitting these actions, and her willingness to explain the reasoning behind them, speaks in favour of her credibility. It shows she has not sought to hide or downplay what happened, even though it might cast her in an unfavourable light – and might even provide a potential cause of action against her. That openness is inconsistent with a person who is fundamentally dishonest. Instead, it reflects someone who made misguided decisions under difficult circumstances, not someone engaged in deception.