Refinitiv Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 7 April 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 415 (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 concerned applications by Refinitiv Ltd, Lipper Ltd and REEL for directions that HMRC issue closure notices for 2018 corporation tax enquiries while a Supreme Court permission to appeal in related JR proceedings was pending. The Tribunal held HMRC had not shown reasonable grounds under Schedule 18 para 33 to keep the 2018 enquiries open and directed HMRC to issue closure notices within specified times, allowing broadly‑worded notices and reserving quantum adjustments to the Tribunal under TMA s 50 if the legal position changed.
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 applied Schedule 18 para 33(3) as creating a statutory presumption in favour of directing closure notices unless HMRC demonstrate reasonable grounds to keep an enquiry open; the decision requires a value judgment balancing cooperation, the volume of material provided, the availability of further information‑gathering powers, and the prospect of higher‑court rulings. It also held that broadly‑worded closure notices can be appropriate where HMRC has reached an informed judgment, because the Tribunal may later adjust the quantum (TMA s 50), and that loss of Schedule 36 powers alone will not justify keeping an enquiry open where no outstanding material remains.
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 observed that the statutory referral mechanism for joint referrals (Sch 18 paras 31A–D) is analogous but has limited weight where JR is brought unilaterally; it treated speculative concerns about stays or amendments to Statements of Case as of little weight; and it noted a judge should avoid reviewing “without prejudice” material to prevent unconscious‑bias challenges. These comments were non‑binding observations.