Geoffrey Khan v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 24 September 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1362 (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 case concerns whether an earlier appeal against a Personal Liability Notice was effectively finally determined under section 85(4) VATA after the appellant's authorised representatives withdrew that earlier appeal and HMRC did not object within 30 days. The Tribunal found the statutory conditions of s.85(4) were met, treated the withdrawal as a deemed determination in HMRC's favour, and held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the later 2025 appeal; HMRC's strike-out application under rule 8(2)(a) succeeded.
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
Where an appellant (or their authorised representative) validly gives notice of withdrawal of an appeal and HMRC do not object within the 30‑day period, section 85(4) VATA operates to treat that withdrawal as a deemed agreement / determination in HMRC’s favour, removing any further appealable matter and ousting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to reinstate or relitigate the same matter.
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 observes that abuse of process is an evaluative doctrine requiring consideration of circumstances (including the quality of professional advice) but cannot restore jurisdiction that the statutory scheme has removed; and that the usual considerations for late permission under section 83G(6) (delay, reasons, proportionality) only arise if an appealable matter remains.