The Commissioners for HMRC v Andrew O’Brien

Decision date: 16 January 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 127 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 a s.29 TMA 1970 discovery assessment for 2009/10 of £6,560.80 based on £33,020 of loans recorded on the Appellant’s P11D from an Edge Consulting Limited Employee Benefit Trust. The Tribunal held the loans were employment income, the taxpayer’s return did not disclose the insufficiency to a hypothetical competent HMRC officer, and HMRC’s discovery assessment and assessed amount were correct. The appeal was dismissed.

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 under s.29 is valid where a return fails to disclose redirected employment income to a third party such that a hypothetical competent HMRC officer, applying the s.29(5)/(6) test, would not reasonably be expected to be aware of the insufficiency from the return; where a P11D records a closing loan balance and an original loan date in the tax year, HMRC’s treatment of the closing balance as the year’s loan amount can support the assessed quantum absent contrary evidence from the taxpayer.

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 mere factual disclosure in complex schemes may be insufficient and that adequate disclosure may require explaining the tax position taken; it also noted it has no jurisdiction to consider certain discretionary concessions or general complaints about HMRC delay or conduct in this context.