Michael Fury v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 8 October 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1416 (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 HMRC discovery assessments and Schedule 24 deliberate penalties for 2015/16 and 2016/17. The Tribunal held HMRC validly made discoveries and that Mr Fury had deliberately not disclosed material income and accounts, but found HMRC mis‑quantified tax and penalties by treating him as receiving 100% of EMR receipts rather than a 13% commission. The appeal was allowed in part and the matter remitted for recalculation on the 13% basis with appropriate expense, personal allowance and interest adjustments.
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 treated as central that a discovery under s.29 TMA is made when an officer reasonably believes that available information points to an insufficiency of tax even if not all facts or legal issues are known, and that “deliberate” conduct for s.29 and Sch 24 can encompass a taxpayer’s conscious decision to withhold material information from agents or HMRC.
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 commented (obiter) that criticisms of HMRC officers’ conduct do not, absent statutory consequence, fall within the Tribunal’s supervisory jurisdiction; it also observed that a blanket 25% additional expenses allowance may seem arbitrary but can be a reasonable inference where there is no better evidence.