beta This part of GOV.UK is being rebuilt – find out what beta means

HMRC internal manual

Enquiry Manual

Working the Enquiry: Tax Cases: Kilburn v Bedford 36TC262

The source of unexplained capital increases of a hairdresser was alleged to be betting winnings. Inconsistent information had been given to the Inspector on the betting methods, when large scale betting started and also about a particular winning horse.

Accounts sent in had needed certain items adjusted.

The Commissioners were not satisfied that capital increases had been derived from non-taxable sources and confirmed the assessments.

The decision was upheld in the High Court, where Harman, J, said:

‘He alleged that these were betting winnings. It was for him to prove that but he really made no serious attempt to do so. The Commissioners merely had his statement. Other statements made by him and by his accountant showed that statements of his were quite unreliable. The Commissioners said: You have not discharged this burden and therefore the assessments must stand. They were under no duty to take any other course.’.