Malcome Oreain Robinson v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 19 February 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 270 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 HMRC discovery assessments for 2007/08–2016/17 in respect of rental income from five flats at 126 Babington Road. The Tribunal found Mr Robinson had a duty to notify and had not done so, that HMRC made a lawful discovery of an insufficiency, and that the best‑judgement assessments based on Lambeth Council occupancy records, Zoopla/advertised rents adjusted by RPI and a 20% expense allowance were reasonable; the assessments were therefore upheld and not adjusted.

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

Where a taxpayer fails to provide adequate documentary evidence after statutory requests, HMRC may lawfully rely on third‑party occupancy records and contemporaneous market indicators and apply a structured best‑judgement methodology (here RPI adjustment of advertised rents with a standard 20% expense deduction) to estimate taxable rental income; such an approach can satisfy both the discovery and best‑judgement requirements in the absence of primary records.

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 commented (without deciding) that it was unclear whether payments under a confiscation order are deductible for income tax purposes, and noted that late, unsupported breakdowns produced only at hearing may be accorded no weight where statutory document requests were not complied with.