Lifeplus Europe Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 28 May 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 797 (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
Lifeplus Europe Ltd appealed an HMRC Schedule 36 information notice that sought Eurark LLC consolidated and entity financial statements for 2014–2022 in a transfer pricing enquiry. The FtT found HMRC had not shown those third‑party parent company accounts were "reasonably required" for the enquiry and that the Appellant did not have the requisite "possession or power" to obtain them. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the Information Notice as to those items.
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 Schedule 36 request for third‑party group accounts must have a clear, rational connection to identified tax issues; speculative or merely background inquiries are insufficient. Where a one‑sided transfer pricing method (TNMM) is properly adopted for a domestic tested party, OECD guidance can mean foreign associated enterprises' financial statements are not reasonably required. Nor does corporate group relationship alone establish that an appellant has "possession or power" to obtain another group entity’s accounts absent a presently enforceable right or established practical means to acquire them.
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 authorities on "power/control" in civil disclosure (eg Lonrho, Schlumberger, North Shore) are instructive in Schedule 36 contexts and support that group membership alone does not prove power to obtain third‑party documents. The Tribunal also observed that witness statements that contain opinion may nevertheless be admissible where exclusion would be unduly prejudicial and the panel can weigh admissibility.