© 2024 by Michael Firth KC, Gray's Inn Tax Chambers
Contact: michael.firth@taxbar.com
Procedure.Tax
For additional search results use Google and enter:
site:procedure.tax [search term]
M11: Physical evidence
Site visit
Necessary to visualise the detail
“Although the Tribunal heard extensive evidence about the Snow Dome from Mr Smith, the Managing Director of the appellant, supplemented by anecdotal evidence from Officer Stone it was difficult to envisage the detail so a site visit in the presence of both counsel and others took place on 1 November 2017.” (Snow Factor Ltd v. HMRC [2018] UKFTT 28 (TC), §13, Judge Anne Scott).
Not helpful many years after relevant time
“I agree with Mr Hall that, given that its case is that its trade in duty suspended goods took place entirely within France and that the events with which the WOWGR appeal is concerned took place between 2012 -2015, a site visit to Elbrook’s premises in Surrey in 2017 would not be a productive use of the Tribunal’s time. I did not understand Mr Jones to seriously contend otherwise although he did suggest that the Tribunal might derive some assistance, as he had done, by seeing the premises from which Elbrook administered its business.” (Elbrook (Cash and Carry) Ltd v. HMRC [2017] UKFTT 143 (TC), §30, Judge John Brooks).
Recordings
​
Secretly recorded conversations admissible
“I understand Mrs Morris’ indignation at the conversation being recorded without her knowledge. But that does not make it inadmissible as evidence.” (Redpath v. Smith [2017] UKUT 44 (TCC), §36, Judge Elizabeth Cooke)
Samples
​
"[18] [HMRC] did not object to the plates of cakes. He accepted that the comparator products had to be bought close to the hearing date so that they could be tasted and the plate of cakes test was part of the conventional evaluation of the VAT treatment of food.
[19] We therefore direct that this evidence is admitted." (Duelfuel Nutrition Limited v. HMRC [2024] UKFTT 104 (TC), Judge Hyde)
​
Helpful but not essential
​
"[4] No samples of the Product were brought to the hearing as evidence. That was unfortunate as we considered that it would have been helpful for us to experience first-hand matters such as the texture, taste, appearance and presentation of the Product. However, there was some documentary evidence on these matters in a bundle of documents that Officer Ratcliff brought to the hearing. Both Officer Ratcliff and Mr Ruse made submissions by reference to documents contained in that bundle. Some of that evidence, particularly that relating to the taste, texture and appearance of the Product as reported in reviews of it, was hearsay in nature. The authors of those reviews did not themselves attend to give evidence, and so their views could not be tested in cross-examination. However, neither Officer Shaw nor Mr Ruse objected to the admissibility of this evidence and since the Company was not putting forward any witness evidence and we could not ourselves examine the Product, we saw no real alternative to considering this evidence in coming to our conclusions on the Product’s properties." (The Frozen Fruit Company ltd v. HMRC [2016] UKFTT 12 (TC), Judge Jonathan Richards)
​