An accountant was accused of having made fraudulent claims for interest relief. He appealed from the special commissioners.
Held: Where the taxpayer was a professional person of previous good character, the standard of proof required before a finding of fraudulent behaviour was appropriate was higher than otherwise. The inherent improbability that such a person would commit fraud required that. The burden of proof remained the balance of probabilities, but stronger evidence would be required. That had been established here.
Lloyd J
Times 23-Apr-2003, [2003] EWHC 781 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Taxes Management, Income Tax
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.181053
