Paul Joseph Bryan v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 19 May 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1149 (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 the Appellant's fourth application seeking directions that HMRC issue closure notices for the tax years to 5 April 2017 and 2018. The Tribunal found the application had no realistic prospect of success because the evidential deficiencies identified in an earlier (Third) decision remained unremedied and the new application merely repeated prior arguments. The application was struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) as an abuse of process and HMRC's strike‑out application was granted.
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
Where specific information reasonably required to resolve identified issues remains outstanding, HMRC ordinarily have reasonable grounds for not issuing a closure notice; and repeating the same closure‑notice application on substantially the same evidential basis, without a material change in circumstances or an appeal of the earlier decision, can amount to an abuse of process warranting strike‑out under Rule 8(3)(c).
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 noted that complaints about HMRC's conduct, delay or burden on the taxpayer do not determine whether HMRC have reasonable grounds for continuing an enquiry in a closure‑notice application. It was also observed (following the Third decision) that client account bank statements may not be privileged if appropriately redacted.