Furlong Services Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 25 July 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 705 (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
HMRC issued a Schedule 36 information notice to Furlong Services Ltd seeking various documents about receipts, football and consultancy income and agreements; Furlong challenged parts of it. The Tribunal held Items 1 and 2 were statutory records only for the periods ending 30 Sep 2019, 30 Sep 2020 and 31 Jul 2021, Item 5 was not a statutory record, Officer Jones had an objective "reason to suspect" for the periods ending 31 Mar 2017, 31 Mar 2018 and 30 Sep 2019 but not for later periods, and the notice was varied (Items 2 and 5 narrowed) while Items 1, 4 and 7 were confirmed; Furlong must comply within 30 days.
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 that a request for a breakdown of receipts and identification of payers can fall within the statutory-records definition under Sch 18 para 21(5)(a) / Sch 36 para 62 as "records of receipts...and the matters in respect of which the receipts...arise," and that Condition B requires an objectively reasonable "reason to suspect" supported by evidence specific to each chargeable period covered by a Schedule 36 notice.
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 observed (obiter) that "information" need not exist in documentary form at the date of the notice to be caught by the statutory-records concept; it applied Simler J's warning against using Sch 36 powers as fishing expeditions by analogy to taxpayer notices as well as third-party notices; and it noted that the timing of an officer's discovery of facts does not prevent a later objectively reasonable suspicion arising from documents available to the officer.