Robert Robson v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 2 March 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 226 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
The case concerns two s29 TMA discovery assessments issued after repayments were made following returns submitted via an agent services account. The Tribunal accepted the taxpayer's evidence that he did not authorise the agent to submit self-assessment returns or EIS claims and found HMRC had made a discovery but failed to show the returns were made on the taxpayer's behalf or that the taxpayer acted carelessly. The appeal was allowed and the assessments were not upheld.
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 treated whether a discovery exists as dependent on the state of mind and knowledge of the specific HMRC officer who makes the assessment, and held that evidence such as provision of an HMRC agent-authorisation code and email correspondence does not inevitably prove that a taxpayer authorised an agent to submit returns or connived in fraudulent claims; on the facts HMRC did not establish authorisation or carelessness by 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 judgment suggested that fraudulent conduct by an agent can go beyond mere "carelessness," so characterising conduct as careless may be inappropriate where fraud is plausible; it also noted a potential operational vulnerability in HMRC's agent-authorisation process that can be open to abuse.