Jeremy Stephen Tetley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 15 February 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 118 (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 HMRC validly made a discovery assessment under s.29 TMA for 2004/05 disallowing a claimed capital loss. The Tribunal found an insufficiency attributable to negligence, and that the information actually made available in the taxpayer's return and accompanying material would not have reasonably put an officer on notice of that insufficiency by the enquiry deadline. The discovery assessment was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.
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 "information made available" for s.29(5) as confined to the self‑assessment return, accompanying documents, claims or documents produced in enquiries, and reasonable inferences from those materials (reflecting s.29(6)); where the return does not clearly alert an officer to the insufficiency, an officer cannot reasonably be expected to have been aware of it by the enquiry deadline, so a subsequent discovery assessment can be valid. The onus lies on the taxpayer to show the return plainly alerted HMRC such that the insufficiency was not newly discovered.
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 that an officer who comes across other information outside routine processing that would prompt questioning may choose to open an enquiry before discovery provisions apply, and observed that cross‑checking between related taxpayers' returns is not automatic (computer flags applied to some partners' returns did not extend to the taxpayer here). These observations were not essential to the decision.