Roger Murphy v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 13 June 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 537 (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
Mr Murphy claimed a carried-back share loss from 2006/07 in his 2005/06 self-assessment; the Tribunal held that as a matter of law the claim should have been treated as relating to the later year so Schedule 1B applied and he was not entitled to make the claim in 2005/06. Nevertheless the Tribunal found the erroneous carried-back claim was nevertheless made "in" the 2005/06 return, invalidating the Schedule 1A enquiry, but HMRC validly opened an s9A enquiry into 2006/07 and the s9A/28A closure notice for 2006/07 effectively disallowed the claimed relief. 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: medium
Two principal points can safely be identified: (1) for pre-ITA periods a claim to carry back losses may fall within Schedule 1B so that the claim "relates to" the later year and is not properly made in an earlier-year return; and (2) where a taxpayer has completed a self-assessment (including computation/adjustment boxes), an erroneous carried-back loss that affects that self-assessment can nevertheless be treated as having been made "in" the earlier return such that s9A/28A regime does not apply to that earlier year.
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 judgment records obiter observations (not relied on as binding) about differences between paper and online returns—specifically whether automatic calculations on online forms exclude a carried-back loss from the tax computation—and notes that paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 1A does not prevent a valid s9A enquiry where a prior Schedule 1A notice was invalid. These points were described as potentially material but limited and subject to later authority.