Does the UK have an equivalent to the Cheek defence?

Question

In essence, in the UK, can someone raise a defence of an unreasonable yet good-faith misunderstanding if charged with tax evasion?

In Cheek v. US, the US Supreme Court stated that a defendant’s mere honest belief that their actions were not criminal, regardless of whether that belief was objectively reasonable, is a valid defence against criminal charges of federal tax evasion.

Does the UK have a similar defence, or, to disprove the prosecution has established mens rea, must any good-faith misunderstanding of the tax code be objectively reasonable, rather than reasonable in the eyes of the defendant?

Answer 1

Criminal vs Administrative Penalties

australia

All crimes under Commonwealth tax law have dishonesty as an element; which is commonplace in financial crimes. Dishonesty requires an intent to deceive which, among other things, requires knowledge that you are not telling the truth. If you believe the Earth is flat, it’s not dishonest to say so.

Administrative penalties (fines without criminal conviction) are not so difficult to prove. First, the onus is “balance of probabilities” rather than “beyond reasonable doubt”. Second, dishonesty is not an element.

Some, such as failing to lodge or pay on time, are strict liability: proving the fact that it happened proves guilt.

The next step applies where misleading conduct is an element. Misleading the tax office requires proof that the act or omission occurred and also that a reasonable person would be misled, even if the defendant believed they were speaking the truth.

Finally, if the defendant argues a certain interpretation of tax law that the ATO disagrees with, they must prove that the defendant’s interpretation is not reasonable.