Nwaneri v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 15 April 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 581 (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 appeal by a locum doctor challenged HMRC closure notices disallowing travel and subsistence claims for 2019/20–2021/22 and related Schedule 24 penalties. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC’s enquiries were valid, treated each engagement via an employment intermediary as a separate employment under s.339A, found NHS Southport and NHS Shrewsbury were permanent (not temporary) workplaces so travel was ordinary commuting and not deductible, and disallowed subsistence claims for lack of necessary evidence. The Tribunal also found the inaccuracies deliberate on the balance of probabilities and upheld the penalties (as varied on review); the appeal was dismissed in full.
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
Where a worker provides services via an employment intermediary, each engagement may be treated as a separate employment for the purposes of sections 338–339 under s.339A; a workplace where the worker attends for all or almost all of a defined assignment period can be a permanent workplace (not a temporary workplace under s.339(5)(a)(ii)), making travel ordinary commuting and not an allowable deduction; and cumulative objective indicators (impossible claimed days, mileage inconsistent with records, lack of receipts and unexplained discrepancies) can support a finding that inaccuracies were deliberate for Schedule 24 penalty purposes.
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 documents and assertions about interest, enforcement actions and tax years outside the appeal did not assist the Tribunal and are matters for HMRC separately, and that hardship (ability to pay or time-to-pay arrangements) is not relevant to the Tribunal’s adjudication of entitlement to bring the appeal.