Akin Kog v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 8 January 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 40 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

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: high

This appeal concerned a personal liability notice (PLN) issued to Mr Akin Kog for unpaid VAT on the 2016 sale of company property where the company had opted to tax but did not account for VAT. The Tribunal found insufficient direct evidence that Mr Kog actually knew of the option to tax at filing, but inferred he deliberately avoided confirming a well‑grounded suspicion ("blind‑eye" knowledge) and therefore filed a deliberately inaccurate return. The PLN was held to be properly calculated and served and the appeal was 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

Where a taxpayer has a firmly grounded suspicion that a relevant fact exists (here, that an option to tax applied) and deliberately refrains from confirming it, that blind‑eye avoidance can justify finding a deliberate inaccuracy for penalty purposes; likewise, pursuing a commercial strategy based on an unresolved tax query and then failing to obtain clarification after a known response timeframe can support an inference of deliberate avoidance.

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 receipt of an HMRC letter may be disputed on credibility grounds and non‑receipt can be accepted if the tribunal finds the claimant reliable; it also observed that commercial pressure and financial distress, without more, do not automatically excuse deliberate avoidance of seeking clarification from HMRC.