Michael Neilson v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 17 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 868 (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
Mr Neilson appealed HMRC assessments seeking to remove a £1,000,000 entry in box 15 of his 2007/08 return as a non‑taxable gift. The Tribunal found the corrective action form did not amend box 15, the closure notice did not produce an appealable decision about that entry, and on the balance of probabilities the £1,000,000 was taxable income connected to his business; 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: high
The Tribunal held that handwritten entries on the corrective action form did not effect an amendment of the taxpayer's return and that a closure notice stating HMRC would not amend a taxpayer's own return entry is not an appealable decision permitting the Tribunal to reopen that unamended entry; accordingly, where statutory time limits for amendment have passed, corrective action is confined to measures expressly authorised (i.e. to counteract a denied advantage identified in a follower notice) and cannot be used to remove tax liability by amending a taxpayer's own entry. The Tribunal also applied the ordinary civil burden of proof, finding on balance that the payment was business‑related taxable income.
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 judgment observed (without forming a binding ratio) that Tribunal procedure may admit evidence that would be inadmissible in civil trials, that the taxpayer bears the burden of showing a receipt is not taxable, and that allegations of procedural unfairness or improper third‑party disclosure in HMRC enquiries do not, by themselves, confer jurisdiction to alter assessments where statute does not permit.