Jonathan King v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 13 March 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 394 (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 challenged HMRC discovery assessments for 2008/09–2010/11 arising from the Appellant's participation in a marketed contractor loan scheme that routed pay into an Isle of Man EBT. The FTT found HMRC made the requisite s29(1) discoveries when their Step 2 calculations were completed and that, on the information reasonably available to an officer by the relevant closure dates, an officer could not have been expected to be aware of the insufficiency of tax (s29(5)/(6)). 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: medium

Where a taxpayer's returns and accompanying materials (including a DOTAS SRN and P11Ds) do not disclose the full mechanism, scale and tax treatment of redirected earnings through an EBT, a hypothetical HMRC officer may not reasonably be expected, on the information available by the closure dates, to be aware of an insufficiency of tax; accordingly discovery assessments can be validly issued once HMRC completes its investigative calculations.

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 marketing material or HMRC internal knowledge counts as "information made available" under s29(6)(d) only if there is clear evidence it was made available to an officer in the statutory manner and timing, and that unusually large loan balances on P11Ds may alert an officer that "something strange" is occurring but can still be insufficient without fuller factual or technical disclosure.