D Midgley & Sons Ltd and Stuart Midgley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 17 March 2011

Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 187 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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: medium

This case concerned appeals by D. Midgley & Sons Ltd and Stuart Midgley against revised Schedule 36 information notices issued by HMRC seeking documents and analyses to check tax liabilities for the year to 31 March 2008. The Tribunal rejected arguments under the Data Protection Act 1998 and PACE 1984, held the notices (as revised) sought information reasonably required for checking the tax position, and dismissed the appeal, but said it had no jurisdiction to allow an appeal in respect of documents that are statutory records.

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

The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to permit an appeal against a Schedule 36 requirement insofar as the documents requested form part of the taxpayer’s statutory records, and that general protections under the DPA and PACE did not automatically prevent disclosure to HMRC where the material sought comprised business/accounting records or was reasonably required for assessment or collection of tax.

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 a preference for the evidence of HMRC’s inspector over the appellant’s recollections on whether HMRC had already inspected certain records, and noted that an income schedule prepared from limited records can nonetheless identify areas warranting formal enquiry even if it is not precisely accurate.