Michael Kelly v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 10 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 852 (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 concerned whether HMRC's consequential amendment notices under s.28B(4) to a partner (following partnership closure notices) were appealable to the First-tier Tribunal. The Tribunal found the consequential amendment notice was not an appealable decision under the Tax Management Act 1970 appeal heads, did not amount to an assessment by an HMRC officer under s.30A, and Mr Kelly had not established a concluded s.32 claim-and-refusal before lodging his appeal. The Tribunal struck out the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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
A consequential amendment notice issued to a partner under s.28B(4) does not by itself confer a right of appeal under the appeal heads in section 31 TMA. An assessment under section 30A requires a conscious decision by an HMRC officer and appropriate recording; routine correspondence explaining consequential amendments does not necessarily qualify as such an assessment. Where a section 32 appeal is relied on, there must be a clear claim by the taxpayer and a demonstrable refusal by HMRC before an appeal under s.32 can be treated as properly brought.
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 (by way of comment) that, depending on the facts, emails or correspondence could in some cases amount to a claim under s.32 and an HMRC response could amount to a refusal, but stressed that factual and procedural prerequisites must be plainly established before construing an appeal as under s.32. The decision also noted authority indicating individual partners generally lack a direct appeal right against notices given under s.28B(4).