Wimmer Family Office Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 10 June 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 882 (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's application to strike out Wimmer Family Office Ltd's First Appeal for want of jurisdiction because the appellant had notified the Tribunal before giving the required written notice of appeal to the relevant HMRC officer under ss.31 and 49D TMA 1970. The Tribunal found no evidence that the statutory written notice was given to the officer who issued the decision prior to lodging the First Appeal and that communications to general HMRC mailboxes did not satisfy the statutory requirement. The First Appeal (TC/2025/02113) was struck out under Rule 8(2)(a). Parties may apply for permission to appeal under Rule 39 within 56 days.
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 held that an appeal under ss.31 and 49D TMA 1970 must be given in writing to the relevant HMRC officer (the officer who issued the decision) before the appeal may be notified to the Tribunal, and that undirected communications to general HMRC mailboxes do not meet that statutory requirement; absent such written notice to the relevant officer, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction and the appeal may be struck out.
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 decision remarked that HMRC's care and management powers cannot be used to dispense with the express statutory requirement to give notice of appeal to the relevant officer before notifying the Tribunal, and noted practical and policy reasons for the requirement (opportunity for reconsideration, statutory review, and potential settlement without tribunal involvement).