Realbuzz Group LTD v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 1 May 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 493 (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
Realbuzz Group Ltd appealed a discovery assessment by HMRC disallowing a £335,452.57 R&D relief claim for the accounting period ended 30 April 2020. The Tribunal held that, for paragraph 44(1) purposes, a hypothetical HMRC officer needed only to be reasonably aware at the last day for enquiries (LDE) that the claim was excessive, not to quantify the shortfall, and on the facts would have been so aware from the information available; the 2021 R&D report was not “information made available” for APE 2020. The Tribunal allowed Realbuzz’s appeal and set aside the discovery assessment.
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 dispositive ratio is that, under paragraph 44(1), the relevant test is whether a hypothetical HMRC officer would have been reasonably aware at the LDE of an actual insufficiency or excessive claim — a qualitative awareness requirement that does not require quantification of the shortfall at that stage — and that this awareness can protect an entire consolidated relief claim where some parts plainly do not qualify.
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 observes (obiter) that the adequacy and clarity of technical disclosure are central to the paragraph 44(1) enquiry and can make a hypothetical officer aware of an insufficiency even in complex or specialist claims; it also comments that distinctions between distinct separate insufficiencies and a single aggregated relief claim may be significant in other cases.