Anthony Outram & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 6 February 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 248 (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 whether HMRC proved that Anthony and Ross Outram made a "deliberate inaccuracy" in their 2005–06 self-assessment returns by claiming large trading losses arising from marketed "Pendulum" CFD arrangements. After a 3‑day rehearing the First-tier Tribunal found HMRC had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that either appellant actually knew the returns were wrong or consciously avoided confirming a firmly grounded suspicion; the appeals were allowed and HMRC's discovery assessments 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
The Tribunal applied and confirmed a subjective test for "deliberate inaccuracy": HMRC must prove actual knowledge that the entry was wrong or that the taxpayer deliberately avoided confirming a firmly grounded suspicion (blind‑eye knowledge). Reliance on professional advisers and a genuine belief in the correctness of the returns can negate an inference of deliberateness, and the mere fact that a scheme was structured to produce tax losses or that an expected loan was not ultimately advanced does not automatically establish deliberateness at the time of filing.
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 indicated that tested oral evidence about state of mind retains significant probative value even if recollection has faded, and emphasised that carelessness or failure to investigate, however serious, is not sufficient to establish deliberateness absent evidence of conscious avoidance.