Matthew Ivey v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 5 February 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 233 (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 case concerned HMRC's application to strike out Mr Ivey's appeal against a 2007 closure notice and two discovery assessments, where the appellant relied principally on loan-charge fairness and public-law complaints and challenged HMRC's use of s684(7A) ITEPA 2003 and APNs. The First-tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine direct public-law challenges to the fairness or validity of the loan charge policy or to review HMRC's exercise of s684(7A), and struck the appeal out under Rule 8(2). The Tribunal treated complaints about HMRC conduct and APNs as matters for HMRC’s complaints process or judicial review rather than the Tribunal.
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 core ratio is that grounds of appeal which are direct public-law challenges to the fairness or validity of legislation or policy (here the loan charge) — and challenges to HMRC’s exercise of s684(7A) — fall outside the statutory jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal and must be pursued by judicial review or other appropriate public-law remedies rather than within the Tribunal’s tax appeals jurisdiction.
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 expressed sympathy for the unrepresented appellant and observed that complaints about HMRC conduct or procedural issues are generally for HMRC’s complaints procedure or judicial review; such conduct issues may only be relevant to the Tribunal if they are ancillary to a matter that is otherwise within its jurisdiction.
Warning
This chunk contains extensive repetition of identical passages; some parts are duplicated and may make reading disjointed. This summary is based on extracted notes that contain duplicated passages and may be materially incomplete; none