John Milburn v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 12 February 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 250 (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 three discovery assessments by HMRC for HICBC (total £2,935) made 10 January 2020 and whether they were procedurally valid and subsequently "protected" by section 97 of the Finance Act 2022. The Tribunal found the appellant had posted contemporaneous "appeal" and "complaint" letters on 15 January 2020 which were likely received but misfiled by HMRC, admitted the late appeal, and held the assessments are protected because the appellant did not meet the exceptions in s97(5) or (6). The Tribunal invited HMRC to consider cancelling the assessments (and interest) under managerial discretion or ESC A19 and directed HMRC to notify the parties within 28 days.
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 ratio is that a taxpayer’s contemporaneous, properly addressed appeal letter sent to an HMRC office nominated by HMRC may be treated as an appeal even if HMRC misfiles it, provided proof of posting and the appellant’s evidence are credible; and that discovery assessments made before the Finance Act 2022 amendments can be rendered "protected" by s97 unless the specific statutory exceptions in s97(5) or (6) are satisfied.
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 indicated as non-binding guidance that it would be appropriate for HMRC to consider exercising managerial discretion or applying ESC A19 to cancel assessments (and interest) where HMRC’s mishandling of a taxpayer’s appeal contributed to the loss of an opportunity to rely on later statutory or procedural changes. It also suggested the Tribunal might retain case ownership to consider arguments about HMRC’s discretionary exercise if necessary.