Brants Bridge Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 9 September 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1406 (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
Brants Bridge Ltd and Braccans appealed HMRC’s refusal under regulation 9(5) CIS after HMRC assessed large under-deductions. The sole issue was whether the appellants took reasonable care to comply with the CIS; the Tribunal found they did not. The Tribunal held that delegating CIS matters to an untested, non‑professional internal "Team" and failing to obtain written advice or to resolve an obvious VAT/CIS tension was unreasonable and dismissed the appeals.
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’s ratio is that a substantial business undertaking repeated, high‑value, similarly structured projects must verify the competence of advisers and obtain adequate, contemporaneous evidence of their tax position; reliance on untested, non‑professional internal advisers without written or tested analysis (and without addressing clear conflicts between tax regimes) does not satisfy the statutory requirement to take reasonable care under the CIS regime.
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 noted (obiter) that HMRC guidance (CIS340 and CISR12080) can be read in different ways and that a reasonable but uncertain reader should seek further guidance; it also observed that recruiting advisers from a close community and using non‑professionally qualified advisers is not in itself unreasonable.