Countrywide Partners Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 4 March 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 357 (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
Countrywide Partners Ltd appealed against a £1,000,000 penalty imposed by HMRC for breaching a stop notice served on 6 December 2022. The tribunal found that Countrywide’s continued operation of payroll, issuance of payslips and provision of services to existing users after the stop notice amounted to "promoting" the specified arrangements and thus breached the stop notice. The tribunal rejected the appellant’s reasonable-excuse arguments and upheld HMRC’s calculation and imposition of the maximum penalty. The appeal was dismissed.
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
For the purposes of a stop notice, "promote" can include organising, managing or providing services that implement the specified arrangements; continuing such activities after service of a stop notice therefore may constitute promotion and breach the notice. When fixing a Schedule 35 stop-notice penalty, the authorised officer must take account of the statutory factors (including fees received and tax advantage) and may lawfully apply the statutory maxima where appropriate.
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 HMRC officers should take care to make clear the immediate legal consequences of stop notices in meetings and correspondence; incorrect informal guidance from HMRC is not binding but may be relevant to claims of reasonable excuse or legitimate expectation; and penal stop-notice provisions should be construed narrowly where two constructions are reasonably open, although the tribunal applied the construction it considered proper in this case.