In reply to Alan Breck:
> This approach was adopted in CIR v Fraser [1942] 24TC498. Fraser, who was a woodcutter, had bought a consignment of whisky in bond and sold it through an agent at a profit. Although many of the badges of trade were either neutral or favourable to the taxpayer, the court said at pages 502 and 503:
poor example of case law, as Bimble has not deliberately bought something then sold it on. If he bought 1000 packets of seeds, used 2 then sold 998 on for profit, it would be different.
> The purchaser of a large quantity of a commodity like whisky, greatly in excess of what could be used by himself, his family and friends,
Bimble hasn't bought the veg, he has grown it, unless you can say he planted a hectare of spuds, which is clearly even beyond a chip addicts normal consumption, but he hasn't. Even looking at his outlay, he is hardly investing in veg growing hoping to make an income from roadside sales.
> Now Bimble might not think it worthwhile declaring for just a few bob but there's always some comic who will shop you or write in to HMRC. While good old HMRC are not obliged to look at every anonymous letter they just might. If they do and it leads to an investigation then heaven help the poor sod. I've also seen it that an HMRC employee "looks up" an individual if for example they passed a roadside stall selling stuff.
I will agree there is always some jobs worth, who probably take joy in harassing people.
Edit; I also add that he isn't 'adding value' to the product to increase his revenue. If you made jam out of fruit, or cordial etc. you can argue that you've put work in to increase your margin. This is also not the case here.
Post edited at 09:27