Skip to content
Solved
SearchBrowse
Sign in

Contents

Official guidance
Enquiry Manual

EM2100 · Working the Enquiry: Tax Cases

  • EM2101 · G Deacon & Sons v Roper 33TC66
  • EM2102 · Horowitz v Farrand 33TC221
  • EM2103 · Moschi v Kelly (and v CIR) 33TC442
  • EM2104 · Kilburn v Bedford 36TC262
  • EM2105 · Roberts v McGregor 38TC610
  • EM2106 · Chuwen v Sabine 39TC1
  • EM2107 · Hellier v O'Hare 42TC155
  • EM2108 · Woodrow (Executor of Charles D Woodrow) v Whalley 42TC249
  • EM2109 · Brimelow v Price 49TC41
  • EM2110 · Yoannou v Hall 53TC32
  • EM2115 · Rea v Highnam 63TC287
  1. Working the Enquiry: Tax Cases: Contents
  2. Working the Enquiry: Tax Cases: Horowitz v Farrand 33TC221

EM2102 | Working the Enquiry: Tax Cases: Horowitz v Farrand 33TC221

From HM Revenue & Customs · Enquiry Manual

Horowitz was a director of, and held 340 of the 350 shares, in a company which took over the business from him in 1930, but the Case 1 additional assessments for years 1942-43 to 1948-49 were made on Horowitz personally. He accounted for his investments by a cash hoard, betting and the sale of personal effects, but could produce no evidence. He also questioned the figures of living expenses contended for by the Inspector.

The Commissioners were not satisfied that around £11,000 came from non-taxable sources and determined the assessments accordingly.

In the High Court, the Judge merely said he could see no grounds for allowing the appeal.

PreviousNext
PrivacyTerms