Daniel Witton v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 19 February 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 267 (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 concerns HMRC discovery assessments for 2006/07–2010/11, a Regulation 72(5) PAYE/NIC direction and s.8 NIC decisions transferring liability to Mr Witton. The Tribunal found HMRC failed to prove the requisite subjective states (deliberate behaviour, Condition B and wilful employer failure/employee knowledge) and that key witness evidence was insufficiently tested because the central officer did not attend. As a result the discovery assessments for 2006/07–2007/08 were held time‑barred and invalid, the Regulation 72(5) direction and s.8 NIC decisions for 2008/09–2010/11 were set aside, and related penalties reduced to nil.
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
HMRC bears the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, any subjective state (e.g. deliberate conduct or knowledge of wilful failure) that is a precondition to extending time limits or transferring liability; and witness statements central to contested issues attract little or no weight if the maker does not attend for cross‑examination and no adequate contemporaneous decision records or evidence from the authorising officer are produced.
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 commented that accepting undisputed documents at face value is different from accepting broader inferences drawn from them without corroboration, and that failure to call the actual authorising officer or produce contemporaneous decision records justifies an adverse inference and undermines reliance on post‑hoc reconstructions.