UU����ֱ��

In the majority of cases, HMRC is required to assess tax due 'to the best of their judgement'. The same test is applied where HMRC attributes tax to one or more prescribed accounting periods for the purpose of calculating penalties, interest or default surcharge¹. The burden of showing that an assessment has not been made to the best of HMRC's judgement falls on the taxpayer. In Mr Chun Wah Lok (also known as Mr Daniel Lok) (trading as 'new Lane House Fish And Chips') v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 169 (TC), TC05661, the First-tier Tribunal reminded itself of the guidance in relation to the burden of proof given in Re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35: 'If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (a “fact in issue”) a judge or jury must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might not have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are zero and one. The