Steven Hague v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 19 February 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 139 (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 appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments and related penalties for tax years 2007‑08 to 2015‑16 where Mr Hague filed no returns and had numerous unexplained bank credits. The Tribunal found HMRC’s officer had the requisite belief and that s36 extended time limits, upheld HMRC’s revised best‑judgment assessments totalling £67,177.01 and penalties totalling £43,665.06 (65% after mitigation), and dismissed the appeal.
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
The decision supports that a discovery under s29 TMA is made where the officer honestly believes, and a reasonable officer could conclude, that available information points to an insufficiency of tax, permitting best‑judgment assessments when taxpayers fail to keep or produce records and give inconsistent, unsupported explanations for unexplained credits; the onus remains on the taxpayer to rebut those assessments.
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 judgment includes observations that applying a single uniform penalty percentage across years can be defensible for consistency and that constructive or "blind‑eye" knowledge may support a finding of deliberate failure to notify where a taxpayer is closely involved in untaxed cash takings; these appear as non‑binding commentary.