Commissioners For Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Panos Parissis and Adrian Towland and Ian Harrison
Decision date: 1 April 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 218 (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
HMRC served s20(1) information notices on three respondents seeking trust and company documents; some material was supplied but seven classes of documents remained missing. The Tribunal held HMRC must first establish a prima facie case that documents exist and are within the recipient's "possession or power", and that "power" can include a practical/de facto ability to obtain documents (not only a presently enforceable legal right). The respondents failed to show lack of possession or power and were liable to penalties (Parissis £200; Towland £200; Harrison £250).
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 binding point the Tribunal identifies is that for s20 notices HMRC must raise a prima facie case that the requested documents exist and are within the recipient's possession or power; once that is established the recipient must show they do not have the documents (for example by showing they asked the holder—such as a trustee—and were refused). "Power" for s20 purposes may include a practical or de facto ability to obtain documents from third parties where obtaining them is practicable and not unduly expensive, not being limited to a presently enforceable legal right.
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 notes record observations suggesting that structuring affairs (e.g. trust deed exclusions) to place documents beyond immediate legal reach does not decisively prevent those documents being treated as within a recipient's power for s20; and that the realistic likelihood of trustee cooperation (rather than mere theoretical legal remedies) is relevant to assessing "power." These remarks appear as non-binding commentary supporting the primary ratio.