Need advice on tax problem

John_Pierpoint

It is the other way round for tax, they rise an assessment and you have to prove them wrong.

Randvegeta

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

It is the other way round for tax, they rise an assessment and you have to prove them wrong.

How do you prove a negative?

If they say 'you earned 100k last year... PAY UP!', how would one prove they DIDN'T earn that much?

Should they not need some kind of basis to make their claims?

antrobus

Randvegeta wrote: »

...
Isn't the legal system built on the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty? Is it the other way around for tax...

The criminal law is based on the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty; civil law is based on the principle of the balance of probabilities. HMRC only have to show that it is more likely than not that you owe them some money.

Randvegeta wrote: »

... Meaning everyone is guilty of tax evasion until proven innocent?

No need to worry about until HMRC formally charge you with tax evasion.

Randvegeta

antrobus wrote: »

The criminal law is based on the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty; civil law is based on the principle of the balance of probabilities. HMRC only have to show that it is more likely than not that you owe them some money.



No need to worry about until HMRC formally charge you with tax evasion.

Fair enough. Make's sense. But isn't tax evasion a criminal offence?

antrobus

Randvegeta wrote: »

Fair enough. Make's sense. But isn't tax evasion a criminal offence?

Yes, but they only tend to prosecute either high profile cases (jockeys, entertainers, football mangers etc) or repeat offenders. As a general rule HMRC will settle for the tax, plus interest, and penalties for ordinary joes who are first offenders.