Robert Huish v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 16 January 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 129 (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 is an appeal by Mr Robert Huish against HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2015/16–2017/18. The Tribunal held that, as originally enacted, TMA s.29 did not permit discovery assessments for HICBC so the assessments were invalid unless retrospectively validated by the Finance Act 2022; Mr Huish had raised the specific validity challenge by 14 April 2020 (i.e. on or before 30 June 2021) so the FA 2022 retrospective validation did not protect the assessments. The Tribunal therefore allowed the appeals (HMRC had also conceded the 2015/16 assessment in any event).
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 operative ratio is that discovery assessments for HICBC were invalid when issued because HICBC was not "income which ought to have been assessed" under the original wording of TMA s.29, and the Finance Act 2022 only retrospectively validates such discovery assessments where the taxpayer had not, on or before 30 June 2021, raised the specific issue that the assessment was invalid for that reason.
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 guidance) that an unrepresented taxpayer need not cite prior cases by name to raise the point; plainly worded correspondence challenging the charge can suffice to raise the validity issue. It also noted that HMRC bears the burden of proving FA 2022 applies to validate an assessment retrospectively, while the taxpayer must show the conditions for non-protection are met.