Dr Robin Garai v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 18 June 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 920 (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
Dr Robin Garai appealed an HMRC Schedule 36 information notice dated 15 December 2022 seeking documents about payments he received while employed by Canopaye Ltd. The First-tier Tribunal held the notice was valid but exercised its variation powers to narrow the scope and timeframe of the required documents and extended compliance to 45 days; the varied notice (Appendix 2) must be complied with. The tribunal found prima facie that most requested items were in Dr Garai’s possession or power and that he had not shown he had made a serious attempt to obtain them from his former employer.
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
From the tribunal’s reasoning it can be identified that a Schedule 36 notice may validly seek information relevant to past, present and potential future tax liabilities because the statutory definition encompasses future liabilities, and that HMRC must establish a prima facie case that the documents or information are in the taxpayer’s possession or power, after which the taxpayer must show they are not or that compliance would be unduly difficult.
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 (not as binding ratio) that issuing similar notices to multiple employees does not by itself invalidate an individual notice; validity depends on whether the information is reasonably required from that particular taxpayer. It also noted that redaction of irrelevant personal expenditure from bank statements is an appropriate way to protect privacy while allowing necessary disclosure.