Andy Irons Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 29 April 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 644 (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

Andy Irons Ltd appealed tax decisions to the Tribunal without first giving written notice of appeal to HMRC as required by TMA s.31 and s.49. HMRC applied to strike out for want of jurisdiction and the Tribunal held the statutory sequence is mandatory, that HMRC’s care-and-management powers cannot cure the defect, and struck the appeal out under Rule 8(2)(a). The Tribunal did not decide any separate application for permission for a late appeal.

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’s ratio is that, under TMA s.31 and s.49, an appellant may notify an appeal to the Tribunal only after first giving written notice of appeal to HMRC, and that this statutory sequence is mandatory; administrative or care-and-management powers of HMRC cannot be used to dispense with that clear procedural requirement.

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 records and discusses prior authorities (including Flash Film, Patel, Fiorini, Thuishyanthan and a passage cited from Longmore LJ) addressing policy reasons for the initial-notice requirement—such as allowing HMRC an opportunity to review or settle and informing HMRC’s view on late permission—but these observations are treated as explanatory and not as new or dispositive holdings in this decision.