David Anderson & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 20 August 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1229 (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 discovery assessments and penalties after Mr and Mrs Anderson, who sold four veterinary practices to a company they wholly owned between 2010 and 2012, failed to declare capital gains and Mr Anderson failed to declare rental income. The Tribunal found HMRC had validly discovered tax insufficiencies, that the appellants gave no evidence to displace the assessments, and that the omissions were deliberate (with fraud found for earlier years), so the discovery assessments and penalties were upheld and the appeals dismissed (one closure-notice penalty element having been withdrawn earlier).
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 as dispositive that where chargeable gains or income are omitted from self-assessment returns and the taxpayer (who knew of the transactions) adduces no evidence to rebut HMRC’s discovery assessment, the insufficiency will be found deliberate, the extended time limits under s36(1A) apply, and the discovery assessments will be valid and in time; the burden rests on the taxpayer to produce evidence to displace an assessment.
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 that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain general complaints about HMRC’s conduct (separate from the out‑of‑time permission issue), and that service by HMRC to the address given on the self-assessment returns was proper for s115 TMA purposes; these remarks were ancillary to the decision.