Mariusz Jeske v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 15 April 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 588 (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

HMRC applied to strike out the part of Mr Jeske’s appeal that challenged his self-assessed income tax liability for 2017/18. The First-tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a taxpayer’s self-assessment and struck out that part of the appeal, while allowing the appellant’s challenge to late payment penalties to continue.

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 applied the principle that it only has the powers given by statute and therefore cannot hear an appeal challenging a taxpayer’s self-assessment; the correct route to correct a self-assessment is by amendment within the statutory timeframe (which was not exercised), not by Tribunal appeal.

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 recorded the appellant’s explanations (allegedly incorrect employer figures, language difficulties, and health/personal issues) but noted no detailed evidence of the asserted errors; it also observed that it has no jurisdiction to entertain general complaints against HMRC in this context.

Warning

The chunk contains repeated passages of the decision text, making it somewhat repetitive. The provided notes contain repeated passages and may be somewhat repetitive, but no other obvious material omissions are indicated.