Mark Stewart Wyatt v The Commissioner For HMRC
Decision date: 26 September 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 867 (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 the validity of two discovery assessments issued by HMRC for 2007/08 and 2009/10 which combined trading and capital figures into single sums and thereby exceeded the tax amount the assessing officer had indicated was necessary to make good the loss. The First-tier Tribunal held those Relevant Assessments invalid under s 29 TMA because each exceeded the maximum amount which, in the officer's opinion, was required to make good the loss of tax. The Tribunal struck out the Relevant Assessments, stayed the related appeals for 60 days to allow joinder of appeals against fresh assessments, and reserved costs and penalty issues for a subsequent hearing.
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 discovery assessment under s 29 TMA must not exceed the amount which the assessing officer genuinely considers necessary to make good the loss of tax; where the officer has clearly expressed a maximum possible tax liability, the officer is not entitled to issue an assessment for more than that figure.
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 assessing officers enjoy a wide discretion under s 29 and may make generous assumptions when forming their opinion, but assessments that do not reflect the officer’s expressed opinion can be unfair because they deprive taxpayers of the option to accept the assessed figure. The notes also record that public law challenges to an officer’s opinion on amount may exist, but generally fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.