Jeremy John Hosking v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 18 March 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 406 (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
Mr Jeremy Hosking appealed an HMRC determination charging £349,309 IHT on gifts totaling £1,737,236 made between 2011 and 2016, arguing they were exempt as "normal expenditure out of income" (IHTA 1984 s.21) or as political donations (s.24), and that the legislation breached Convention rights. The First-tier Tribunal found the gifts were sporadic, discretionary and unsupported by a formula or settled pattern, so they did not meet the s.21 normal-expenditure exemption, and it refused to read s.24 to cover non-party campaign bodies; no breach of Articles 10, 14 or A1P1 was found. The appeal was dismissed and the IHT determination upheld.
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 essential ratio is that "normal expenditure out of income" under IHTA 1984 s.21 requires evidence of either a demonstrable prior commitment or an identifiable, settled pattern or formula of recurring payments (in amount, frequency or by an adopted rule) extending beyond the merely nominal; sporadic, discretionary donations without documentary or other corroboration of such commitment or pattern do not qualify. Also, the statutory political-donation exemption in s.24 was not to be read down to include non-party campaign organisations in the absence of a Convention breach.
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 observed that it can be artificial to isolate a short cluster of donations when they form part of a wider, long‑running sequence, but that aggregation will not necessarily cure the absence of a predictable formula or settled pattern. It also noted that Article 10 was not engaged here because there was no evidence the tax charge deterred expressive activity and the donor continued to make substantial political donations.