ASSESSMENT – incomplete records – assessment based on Appellants figures – Appellant unable to work for some of the period – assessment to best judgement – case dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

	C M BOOTH	Appellant

	- and -

	THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE	Respondents

				Tribunal:	MR D S PORTER  (Chairman)
						MISS C A ROBERTS					 	

Sitting in public in Manchester on 2nd October 2003

The Appellant appeared in person

N Bird of Counsel for HM Customs and Excise for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2003

DECISION

1.	By a Notice of Appeal dated the 9th September 2002 C M Booth (“ the Appellant”) appealed against an assessment dated 20th March 2001 in the sum of  £4,207 plus interest of £681.70 representing VAT arrears for the period 1st January 1998 to 30th June 1999
2.	The Appellant appeared in person and Mr N Bird of Counsel appeared for the Respondents and produced a bundle of copy documents  and called Mr I C White the assessing officer. 
3.	The Appellant repairs and sells computers. Mr White, a Senior Officer of Customs and Excise, visited the Appellant’s premises on a routine inspection by appointment on 9th August 2000. The Appellant had registered for VAT although his turnover did not require him to do so. He had registered because his suppliers all charged VAT and he wished to recover the VAT.
4.	The Appellant was unable to produce any records other than VAT summaries for the periods 12/97, 03/98, 06/98, and 09/99 to 03/00. Mr White noted that the VAT summaries agreed with the figures on the returns submitted except in respect of the periods 03/98 and 09/98
5.	Mr White wrote to the Appellant on 17th August 2000 (see the letter at page 6 of the bundle) requesting further information, which included a request for paying-in books, bank statements, and copy invoices. The responded failed to reply to that letter and subsequent letters in October 2000 and February 2001.
6.	The Appellant gave evidence to the effect that his wife had been in hospital for eighteen months suffering from a mental illness. They had been living separately and when she recovered she had been given custody of the children. In spite of that he had in fact looked after the children; dealt with the divorce from his wife; and tried to run the business. As a result he had a break down in about October 1998. He was unclear as to whether he worked from that date until October 2002, but agreed that he was probably not working for the periods 12/98, 03/99 and 06/99. He also agreed that the figures appearing on his summary differed from those on his VAT returns. He thought that might be because his primary computer had crashed and he had used the figures from his second computer, which he had probably backed up incorrectly.
7.	He had received £35,000 approximately under his father’s will in March 1997 and in July 1998 borrowed £3,000 from his bank by way of over draft.  He had used both amounts to supplement his income. He used his visa credit card to pay his suppliers. Mr White had not taken any of these matters into consideration, as Mr Booth had failed to produce to Mr White and the Tribunal any of his books of primary record, and his bank or credit card statements. Mr Booth produced his father’s estate account to the Tribunal but Mr White had not seen this at the time he raised the assessment. 
8.	Mr White produced to the Tribunal a schedule showing the amounts produced by Mr Booth on his schedule, compared with the amounts produced on the VAT returns. Mr White referred to his notes made shortly after his visit. He was unable to produce the Appellant’s summary as he had not been able to take it away at his first visit and the Appellant had failed to produce that or any other evidence.
9.	In the periods 03/98, 06/98 and 09/98 he had increased the amount of output tax and reduced the amount of input tax to arrive at the most likely figure. He had also disallowed the amounts shown on the Visa Bills, as Mr Booth had produced no supporting evidence to justify their inclusion. As a result the figures produced an underpayment of 1355.62.
10.	Mr Booth had indicated that he had not been working due to his illness for the periods 12/98, 03/99 and 06,99 and Mr White had therefore reduced the VAT return to nil. This gave rise to a further liability of £2,853. 39. The assessment was, therefore, £4,207.00 plus interest of £681.70. The assessment the subject of this appeal is slightly less than the figures on Mr White’s schedule because the figures were rounded down to the nearest pound.
11.	We find as fact the matters set out in paragraphs 3 to 10 above.
12.	Mr Bird submitted that Mr White had had some degree of difficulty in raising the assessment because of the lack of any primary evidence from Mr Booth. Mr White had used the figures form Mr Booth’s own summary and compared them with the returns. He had also relied on Mr Booth’s observation that he had been unable to work for the periods 12/98, 03/99 and 06/99. 
13.	Mr Booth had been unable and unwilling to produce any other evidence and the assessment had therefore been made to best judgement.
14.	Mr Booth submitted that Mr White had not taken into account that he was living on his Father’s inheritance and his Bank overdraft. Further all his suppliers were paid for on his Visa card and those amounts should have been allowed.
15.	We have considered the facts in this appeal and confirm that the assessment has been made to best judgement. There is no duty on the Commissioners to prepare Mr Booth’s accounts for him. The evidence given by Mr Booth was vague in the extreme and very unsatisfactory.
16.	Mr White could only properly work on the figures available to him and in so doing was more than fair to Mr Booth.
17.	We therefore dismiss the appeal.
18.	The Commissioners made no application for costs and we award none.

D S PORTER
CHAIRMAN
RELEASED:
MAN/02/8098