Paul Henley v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 14 January 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 95 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
Mr Henley appealed HMRC closure notices that disallowed carry-back claims for losses from Media Pro share disposals and Sovereign trading losses. The FTT held the Media Pro share-loss carry-back entered in box 15 of the 2009/10 self-assessment formed part of that return and survived HMRC's closure notice, so the repayment claim succeeds; the Sovereign trade-loss carry-back claims were stand‑alone schedule 1A/1B claims and were validly disallowed by HMRC's schedule 1A closure notice, so those claims fail.
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: medium
An entry in box 15 of an online self-assessment will form part of that year's return where, by law or clear supporting information, it operates to reduce the tax liability for that year (here, the Media Pro share-loss carry-back). By contrast, where the relief claimed falls under the schedule 1B regime (trade-loss carry-backs), entries in box 15 will generally be treated as claims relating to the later year and not part of the earlier year's self-assessment unless clearly intended otherwise; such stand‑alone schedule 1A/1B claims can be dealt with and disallowed by a schedule 1A enquiry and closure notice.
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 suggests box 15 can have different legal effects depending on the statutory relief claimed and that closure notices ought to be read as a reasonable recipient would; a closure notice that does not address a reduction effected by a valid in‑return claim may be ineffective to oust the self‑assessment. These points were discussed as guidance rather than strictly binding holdings.