Yasir Badoume v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 27 March 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 484 (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 challenged HMRC discovery assessments (2016–17 to 2020–21), a closure amendment for 2021–22 and Schedule 24 penalties arising from tax returns prepared by the appellant's agent. The Tribunal, proceeding in the appellant's absence, upheld the discovery assessments and closure notice, found the agent's conduct at least careless (in parts deliberate/reckless) and the appellant failed to take reasonable care, and dismissed the appeals while applying penalties at 25.5% of the under-assessed tax for each year after a modest reduction.
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
A discovery assessment or closure amendment is valid where the officer has formed a subjective conclusion of under-assessment that is reasonably held on the available material; where a taxpayer or agent provides no adequate corroboration for claimed expenses, HMRC may reasonably disallow those expenses in full. Poor or implausible conduct by a tax agent (including failing to retain or produce records or making unsupported assertions) can justify treating returns as careless or deliberate for assessment and penalty purposes.
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 criticised the agent's professional practices (record destruction and implausible assertions) and indicated it would send a copy of the decision to the agent's professional association for potential investigation. The decision also noted that reasonable notification and fairness can justify proceeding in the appellant's absence (considering resource and Rule 38 protections), as long as a fair decision remains possible.