VATF94000 - Litigation: What is the standard of proof and where is the burden of proof in civil litigation cases?
Standard of proof
The standard of proof for civil intervention cases is the balance of probabilities (바카라 사이트˜more probably occurred than not바카라 사이트™).
In the lead case on civil standard of proof Lord Hoffmann stated in the House of Lords judgement in the case of In Re B (Children) ([2008] UKHL 35):
13. 바카라 사이트¦ I think that the time has come to say, once and for all, that there is only one civil standard of proof and that is proof that the fact in issue more probably occurred than not.
This is different to the standard of proof for criminal cases, which is 바카라 사이트˜beyond all reasonable doubt바카라 사이트™.
Burden of proof
Cases where we use the Kittel and Fini principles
The burden of proof lies with HMRC to show that, on balance of probabilities, the taxable person 바카라 사이트˜knew or should have known바카라 사이트™ that he was involved in VAT fraud or that his transactions were 바카라 사이트˜connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT바카라 사이트™. Moses LJ, in the Court of Appeal judgement in the case of Mobilx Ltd (in administration) and others ([2010] EWCA Civ 517), stated:
81. HMRC raised in writing the question as to where the burden of proof lies. It is plain that if HMRC wishes to assert that a trader바카라 사이트™s state of knowledge was such that his purchase is outwith the scope of the right to deduct it must prove that assertion. No sensible argument was advanced to the contrary.
Cases where we use another civil intervention
The burden of proof lies with the taxable person.