Hector Lester v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 2 March 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 323 (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 concerned whether Mr Lester validly made carry‑back claims for partnership losses for 2009/10 and 2010/11 and whether HMRC had issued decisions giving rise to an appeal. The FTT found HMRC had rejected the claims and that the tribunal had jurisdiction; entries in box 22 on the partnership pages amounted to prior carry‑forward claims under ss 83/84 ITA; and Mr Lester’s 21 February 2020 claims both operated to amend/withdraw those prior claims and were within time because ss 43(2)/43C(2) TMA extended the applicable period. The tribunal allowed the appeal and treated the carry‑back claims as validly made (the 2010/11 claim was within scope or amendment was permitted).
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
From the judgment as recorded in the notes: a figure entered by a taxpayer or agent in box 22 on partnership pages can amount to a quantified carry‑forward claim under ss 83/84 ITA for the purposes of TMA s 42(1A); where a late assessment/amendment creates entitlement to relief not previously available, the extended periods in ss 43(2) and 43C(2) TMA can apply to permit consequential claims (including necessary amendment or withdrawal of prior carry‑forward claims) up to the end of the tax year following the amendment; and a substantive carry‑back claim may, in appropriate circumstances, be treated as effecting the necessary amendment to prior claims if HMRC is clearly put on notice.
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 noted but did not need to decide that there may be no principled difference between a legal “revocation” of a claim and amending it to nil where the taxpayer’s intention and notice to HMRC are clear. It also observed that an engagement letter together with surrounding conduct can, depending on facts, suffice to establish an agent’s authority to receive enquiry and closure communications.