Sean McMahon v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 28 August 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1064 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: low
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: low
This appeal concerns the appellant's Rule 8 application to bar HMRC from defending discovery assessments for 2008/09 and 2009/10 on the ground delay has so prejudiced him that he cannot have a fair trial. The tribunal found HMRC have a realistic prospect of establishing valid, in-time discovery assessments and refused to bar HMRC; the appeal will proceed to a full hearing, with directions about pleading any fair-trial ground and timing for HMRC’s statement of case.
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: medium
The tribunal applied Rule 8(3)(c) and held that a respondent should be barred only where there is no realistic prospect of that respondent succeeding; a "realistic prospect" requires more than mere arguability and involves some degree of conviction that the respondent can establish its case. Where validity and timeliness of discovery assessments are contested, HMRC bears the burden of showing subjective and objective discovery and that the assessments were validly made in time, but absence of original assessing officers or delay does not, by itself, make HMRC’s case fanciful.
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 Rule 2 (the overriding objective) does not provide a free-standing power to strike out outside Rule 8; that allegations invoking Article 6, the Taxpayer Charter, or staleness require detailed factual and legal analysis and are generally unsuitable for resolution on a preliminary barring application; and that tribunals should avoid conducting a mini-trial on strike-out/barring applications and allow matters needing fuller factual investigation to proceed to a hearing.
Warning
Chunk is repetitive and contains duplicated passages of the same material. Notes are repetitive and contain duplicated material; they may not include the full detailed reasoning of the judgment.