Aqsa Khan v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 18 August 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1205 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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 a Personal Liability Notice making the sole director (the appellant) personally liable for a £1,492,869 Schedule 24 penalty tied to VAT assessments on Best Buy Scot Ltd for alleged metal trading. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's "hijacking" defence, preferred contemporaneous documentary evidence over her oral account, found the company had made deliberate inaccuracies, and confirmed the PLN, dismissing the 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: medium
The Tribunal held that where an appellant to a PLN disputes an underlying tax assessment that has not been judicially determined, the burden lies on the appellant to prove the assessment wrong on the balance of probabilities; tribunals should generally prefer contemporaneous documentary evidence to inconsistent later recollections; and a sole director who instructed filings can be personally liable under Schedule 24 where the deliberate inaccuracies are attributable to that officer.
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 expressed views (not strictly binding) that unexplained retention of nil VAT registration and inconsistent company records are strong evidence against a hijacking defence; continued receipt or use of government support (CJRS) after alleged cessation of involvement undermines claims of non-involvement; and failure to produce an available witness for cross-examination reduces the weight of supporting statements.