Sarah Jane Turcan & Ors v The Commissioner For HMRC
Decision date: 20 September 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 869 (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
Seventeen beneficiaries who received 2002–03 capital payments under Mark II Flip‑Flop trusts challenged Schedule 36 information notices issued by HMRC in November 2019. The Tribunal held that HMRC had shown a rational connection between many requests and the purpose of checking the appellants’ CGT positions, ordered production of specific documents (including two Tenon presentations dated 31 July 2002 and several numbered Items) and upheld some claims of lack of possession/power or legal professional privilege for other Items. The appeals were therefore allowed in part and dismissed in part, with detailed directions and time limits for production.
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
The Tribunal applied a limited “reasonably required” test under Sch 36 para 1(1): a document is properly required if there is a rational connection between the notice request and the officer’s purpose of checking the taxpayer’s tax position (not a merits inquiry). For para 18 challenges, HMRC must first raise a prima facie case that requested documents exist or could reasonably be said to exist and be within the recipient’s possession or power, after which the onus shifts to the recipient to show non‑possession/non‑power. Claims of legal professional privilege must be assessed document‑by‑document on established tests (confidentiality, legal advice context, and dominant purpose).
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 rejected a proposed stricter reformulation of the “reasonably required” test (that HMRC must show the taxpayer’s facts fall “on all fours” with Bowring UT), stressing adherence to the statutory wording. It also made observations about case/file management complexities (including preservation of LPP material) and noted that insurance documentation can be integral to factual inquiries in these MIIFF cases.