UT/2022/000131 - [2025] UKUT 00063 (TCC)

Mr Quinn submits that the FTT declined to take account of a spreadsheet showing family income calculations, and letters from various insurers, solicitors, and government departments showing amounts of compensation, property sale proceeds, and benefits paid to Mr Rafferty.

However, we find that it is clear that the FTT gave consideration to the spreadsheet (which the FTT called the “Rafferty/HMRC table” in its decision). Reference to this spreadsheet is made at paragraphs [77], [149], [207], [213], and [214]. The FTT also referred in its decision to the various insurance claims (see [18]), the property sale (see [14]), and the benefits (references throughout the decision). It is clear that the FTT, having considered the spreadsheet, found that it was not reliable in the absence of documentary or other evidence to support the figures within it (see [213]), and that it lacked credibility as a significant number of the sums were round numbers. The FTT made a clear finding at [219] that there was insufficient documentary and oral evidence to satisfy them as to how Mr Rafferty had funded the purchase of 64 Coolnasilla Park East Belfast without a mortgage.

We also find that at [235] the FTT accepted the facts and submissions put forward by HMRC with regards to the discovery assessments, which had been put on the basis that there was only one household (see [116]). The FTT also found at [209] to [210] that there were inconsistencies in Mr Rafferty’s evidence as to whether he was caring for his sons or caring for his mother. We note that in the FTT’s decision on the application for permission to appeal, Judge Gemmell WS confirms at [7] that the FTT had found that there was only one household.

We agree with Ms Sheldon’s submission that if there were two households, the financial position of Mr Rafferty would be worse – not better – as it is more likely than not that his expenditure would increase.

We find that in relation to the issue of whether there were two or one households, the FTT (i) took account of the relevant evidence, (ii) made a decision on a fact in issue, and (iii) gave sufficient reasons for its decision. We find that as regards Ground 1, the FTT made no error of law.