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: Chuwen v Sabine 39TC1

EM2106 | Working the Enquiry: Tax Cases: Chuwen v Sabine 39TC1

From HM Revenue & Customs · Enquiry Manual

The greater part of sums paid into appellant’s business were alleged to represent betting winnings. Witnesses were called to support appellant’s story.

Commissioners found that appellant has not proved his contention and determined assessments accordingly.

The decision was upheld in the High Court.

PreviousNext
PrivacyTerms