Doshi v Revenue and Customs (No.2) [2005] UKSPC SPC00487 (27 June 2005)

SPC00487

DETERMINATION OF FIGURES pursuant to  decision previously released

THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS

	MRS SHILPA DOSHI (No.2)	Appellant

	- and -

	MARK DAVID ANDREW
	(HM INSPECTOR OF TAXES)	Respondent

		Special Commissioner: 	DR JOHN F. AVERY JONES CBE 

Sitting in public in London on 14 to 17 March 2005

Dhiren Doshi, husband of the Appellant, for the Appellant

Barry Williams, Inland Revenue Appeals Unit London, for the Respondent

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005

DECISION

1.	This is an addendum to my decision released on 5 April 2005 in the appeal by Mrs Shilpa Doshi against a discovery assessment for 1996-97 and a closure notice making an amendment to her self-assessment for 1997-98 in relation to her business carried on as a sole trader under the name of Doshi & Co Accountants, in which I determine the figures resulting from my previous decision.
2.	In that decision I approved the method of determining the figures based on bankings into three accounts but excluding a fourth account.  Mr Doshi for the Appellant had in reply given a number of cases where he contended that there were payments between the accounts and so the method would give rise to double counting.  I gave the Inspector time to reply to these.  Mr Williams’ letter states:
“The Crown’s submission is that none of Mr Doshi’s postulations as to what might have happened amount to evidence of what did happen.  The only clear case of over-counting could have occurred with the National Westminster account 504, which has now been excluded from all the calculations.  Once the method of using bankings had been accepted, double counting can only occur if there are inter account transfers.  There is no evidence whatsoever that such transfers occurred, either randomly or systematically.  It is therefore submitted that the method of free of all ‘double counting.’” 
I have again been through Mr Doshi’s submissions and reluctantly, because the material available to him was incomplete, I agree with the Inspector that these are all cases where there might have been transfers, rather than cases where on the balance of probability there were transfers.
3.	Mr Doshi on behalf of the Appellant submitted that given an hourly rate of £5 per hour for an accountancy bureau she must have worked 200,000 hours, or alternatively she worked 2,000 hours at an hourly rate of £500 per hour.  Having determined that the appeal be determined on the basis the bankings I cannot take these points into account and in any event they ignore the work of the staff.
4.	The result of my decision is calculated by the Inspector to be a profit of £1,033,899 split as to £494,994 for 1996-97 and £538,905 for 1997-98, which figures the Appellant has not disputed, and accordingly I determine the appeals in these figures.

JOHN F. AVERY JONES

SPECIAL COMMISSIONER
RELEASE DATE: 27 June 2005

SC 3014/04