Rune Madsen v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 21 April 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 615 (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 a 2014 SDLT discovery assessment made after Mr Madsen's 2011 purchase and a contemporaneous call option. The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that a 31 January 2012 letter notifying HMRC was posted and received, that it was at least partly sent on the purchaser’s behalf, and that the SDLT1 together with that letter would have put a notional HMRC officer reasonably on notice of the under‑assessment. The discovery assessment was therefore invalid and set aside.
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
A written notification sent by a third party can qualify as notification "by the purchaser or a person acting on his behalf" where the content and context show it was made on the purchaser’s behalf; for Schedule 10 para 30(3) the material before the hypothetical HMRC officer includes documents so notified, and the adequacy of disclosure is judged by the content and quality of those materials. The hypothetical officer is to be attributed general competence and a reasonable understanding of relevant law such that adequate disclosure can be expected to put them on notice of an insufficiency.
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 (non‑bindingly) that HMRC misfiling or delay in searching records can make lack of a file entry an unreliable indicator of non‑receipt; that para 30(3) focuses on the taxpayer’s adequacy of disclosure rather than presumed ignorance of the hypothetical officer; and that in some cases it may be permissible to treat the hypothetical officer as able to seek assistance or acquire necessary statutory knowledge.