Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

[2024] UKUT 00436 (TCC)

Fecha: 19-Feb-2024

The grounds of appeal

The grounds of appeal

18.

The Applicant filed grounds of appeal submitting that the FTT erred in law in making the Decision. I addressed those and refused permission to appeal for the reasons set out in my decision dated 8 October 2024.

19.

His revised grounds of appeal were contained in his speaking note for the hearing from which I extract the following summaries as relevant:

‘The summary of my reasons for appealing are:

That the Tribunal had no evidence, or not enough evidence, to support its decision for the following reasons:

(a)

The police transcript following my arrest in 2009 [HB14/44] was taken out of context and was incomplete and inaccurate. The Tribunal did not have before it a recording of the said interview and I was unable to challenge its accuracy.

(b)

Further too great a reliance was placed on the said transcript in coming to the conclusion that my evidence was unreliable when:

(i)

I was unable to challenge the same because of the lack of a recording; and

(ii)

The purported earnings only went to income prior to 2009 and did not prove any income after 2009.

(c)

Yet further, the transcript had to be inaccurate because it stated I had been employed by his brother for “12 – 13 years” which predated the family’s ownership of the pub.

(d)

Insufficient and/or no weight was attached to my explanation that my winnings came from gambling

(e)

No or insufficient weight was placed on the evidence of Brian Hague [HB732-733] that I had ceased to work at the New Tyke after 2011.

(f)

No or insufficient weight was placed on the fact that after 2011 there was no evidence that I worked for the New Tyke or for any other employer.

(g)

The assumption that I worked for the New Tyke after 2011 is based on no or insufficient evidence

(h)

No or insufficient weight was placed on the witness statements of Jessica Gilfoyle [HB/204] and Darren Troy [HB/205] that on the balance of probabilities all the cash receipts in my bank account came from winnings from gambling.

(i)

As to the notes of the meeting dated 15 March 2017 [HB/31-39] the following inconsistencies in the note, upon which I did not have the opportunity to challenge renders the Tribunal’s findings, insofar as there was any reliance on the same, unreliable.

I rely on the following points:

As to paragraph 9 it is not accepted that I was told I could have a copy. I received no copy and had I done so, would have amended it.

As to paragraph 10, I was not told to put any comments or amendments on a separate sheet.

As to paragraph 12 to 19 the contents are disputed and the same highlights the unreliability of the document.

(j)

As to the notes of the meeting dated 9 August 2018 [HB/141-143] the following inconsistencies in the said note, upon which I did not have an opportunity to challenge, renders the Tribunal’s findings, insofar as there was any reliance on the same, unreliable.

I rely on the following points:

As to paragraph 9 it is incorrect that I agreed the earlier minutes.

As to paragraph 12 I stated that whilst he had no evidence, I further stated that the bookmakers would have evidence.

(k)

In all the circumstances there was insufficient information for Raakhee Tailor (“RT”) to believe that the information available pointed in the direction that there was an insufficiency of tax and

(l)

If all the above factors had been taken into account, the Tribunal could not have found that a would have formed the view that there had been a loss of tax based on the information to RT.

Capital gains tax

The Tribunal failed to give sufficient or any weight to the fact that SH did not make any profit on Heathcroft Crescent because of all the substantial renovations and repair to the property.

The Tribunal gave no or insufficient weight to the witness evidence of Gavin Brady [HB/734-735] which gave details of substantial renovation and repair work.

In all the circumstances there was insufficient information for RT to believe that the information available pointed in the direction that there was an insufficiency of tax and

If all the above factors had been taken into account, the Tribunal could not have found that a would have formed the view that there had been a loss of tax based on the information to RT.

…

Conclusion

There are essentially five points in summary for my appeal:

The form FTC1 which I submitted to bring me here today on point 8.1 states one example of mistakes of law is the tribunal had no evidence or not enough evidence to support its decision. The evidence was not there because the focus instigated by HMRC was on my gambling wins and not on whether or not I worked for the pub.

There was no evidence of my earnings from the pub only assumptions.

I have new evidence that is relevant and key for the tribunal to support its decision. Statements from independent witnesses, written in a no template like manner all confirming I left the pub in 2011, some say why, and all saying they haven’t seen me back at the pub since.

The new evidence was not available to me at the time because the focus was on my gambling, and I had proved that I was earning from gambling.

And finally, as a litigant in person I was at an unfair advantage and not on an equal footing because of the difficulty in trying to match specific page numbers in reference to letters and statements, the fact the judges’ bundle was different to mine and the fact I could not make the points I make in this application for oral permission to appeal because of the administrative mix up.

A combination of all of the above rendered the hearing unfair.’