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: Brimelow v Price 49TC41

EM2109 | Working the Enquiry: Tax Cases: Brimelow v Price 49TC41

From HM Revenue & Customs · Enquiry Manual

The Commissioners rejected the taxpayer’s contention that the bulk of sums assessed represented betting winnings.

The taxpayer was a farmer, had been a jockey and bred and raised greyhounds . He attended race meetings and dog tracks regularly and had sources of information about the form of runners.

Goss J talks (p49) about the failure to keep records and the possibility of having winnings attributed to taxable profits.

PreviousNext
PrivacyTerms