The Personal Representatives of Mukesh Sehgal & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 1 April 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 516 (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 whether loan notes redeemed in 2006 were "situated outside the United Kingdom" because they were registered in Jersey, and whether the taxpayers were negligent in their 2006–07 returns. The First-tier Tribunal found no credible contemporaneous Jersey register and held the notes were situated in the UK, so the CGT assessments were upheld. The Tribunal nevertheless found the taxpayers had taken reasonable care in relying on professional advisers and set aside the negligence penalties in full.
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: medium
The Tribunal treated "register" in s.275(1)(e) TCGA as a formal, specific, identifiable record maintained to be the authoritative reference for ownership; ordinary accounting/trial-balance records or post‑hoc documents do not satisfy that requirement. Absent contemporaneous evidence of such a formal register in the claimed jurisdiction, situs under s.275(1)(e) is not established.
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 decision indicates that registers may be maintained in electronic form provided they meet the qualitative requirements of formality, content and intended purpose, and that reasonable reliance on competent professional advisers who prepared the returns can negate negligence penalties.