Shamsul Arefin v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 8 May 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 522 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This Tribunal appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments and Schedule 24 penalties after CDF disclosures by Mr Arefin and Mrs Nahar about undeclared commission and rental income. The Tribunal found it reasonable for HMRC to treat unexplained cash deposits as commission income, upheld the assessments and penalties but reduced the Tribunal’s estimate of 2010 commission income from £30,000 each to £10,000 each, and adjusted the assessment and penalty figures accordingly. The Tribunal criticised the Appellants’ delayed and incomplete disclosure and found HMRC’s mitigation generous and not to be reduced further.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
Where cash deposits are banked without supporting evidence of an alternative source, it is reasonable for HMRC to attribute them to the income source it has identified (here, commission income); and an upward revision of an HMRC assessment on appeal generally requires new material not previously considered by HMRC.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal suggested that a modest, nominal allowance for undocumented but likely property running costs (e.g. small fixed sums for insurance and safety certificates) may be appropriate in fairness despite lack of substantiation, and indicated that Tribunal discretion under section 50(7) TMA to increase assessments is constrained by the need for new evidence.