Jian Lin v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 27 March 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 374 (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 an HMRC Schedule 36 Information Notice seeking documents relating to Mr Jian Lin’s unfiled self-assessment for 2018/19–2021/22. The Tribunal held that requested details of self‑employed income and deductible expenditure are statutory records for Schedule 36 purposes and so appeals against those items were struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal further found that HMRC reasonably required bank account details/statements and an employment timeline to check Mr Lin’s tax position and dismissed the appeal against those items, directing compliance 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 treated information constituting the details of income and deductible expenditure necessary to make and deliver a correct and complete return as forming part of a taxpayer’s statutory records for the purposes of Schedule 36, so it had no jurisdiction to entertain appeals against requirements for those records; where a sole trader has not filed returns, HMRC may reasonably require basic financial information (such as bank account details/statements) and an employment history to check the individual’s overall tax position.
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 commented (obiter) that a paragraph 1(1) Schedule 36 Information Notice does not require HMRC to suspect under‑declaration where no returns have been submitted, with constraints requiring suspicion being tied to periods for which returns were submitted; it also observed that raising a VAT assessment on limited information may be appropriate where statutory time limits apply and can be revisited if new evidence emerges.