Timothy Welham v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 29 June 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 989 (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
Mr Welham appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against HMRC penalties but the Tribunal struck the appeal out for want of jurisdiction because he had not given a valid notice of appeal to HMRC under s31A TMA before notifying the Tribunal. The Tribunal found the November 2023 and January 2024 letters were requests for remission/repayment, did not identify specific decisions or grounds of appeal, and therefore did not satisfy s31A or the s49D(1) precondition for Tribunal jurisdiction. The strike-out was made under Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 r.8(2).
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
A communication to HMRC will only constitute a valid notice of appeal under s31A TMA if, in substance, it conveys an intention to challenge an identifiable decision and specifies grounds of challenge; compliance with s31A is a prerequisite for the First-tier Tribunal to acquire jurisdiction under s49D.
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 indicates (obiter) that the Tribunal will look to the substance rather than form of correspondence when deciding whether it is a notice of appeal, but that mere requests for repayment or remission, without identification of a decision or grounds of appeal, will not suffice; the appellant bears the burden of proving a prior appeal where correspondence is ambiguous.