Georgios Kamperis v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 24 November 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1441 (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 challenged follower‑notice penalties under s208 FA 2014 issued after the Huitson decision; the Tribunal found the notices valid and that Mr Kamperis did not perform the statutory two‑step corrective action (amend or settle and notify) by the specified time. Payment of APNs or reliance on the Montpelier promoters did not amount to corrective action, and it was not reasonable in all the circumstances for him to refrain from corrective action. The appeal was dismissed and penalties confirmed, reduced to the reviewed total of £39,153.22 under s50(6) TMA.
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 determinative ratio is that payment of an additional provisional (or assessment) amount does not itself constitute the s208 corrective action; corrective action requires irrevocable counteraction of the denied advantage by either amending returns or settling and notifying HMRC. Further, a taxpayer’s decision not to take corrective action can only succeed as a defence if, objectively and in all the circumstances, a prudent person in the taxpayer’s position would reasonably have refrained.
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 commented (obiter) that it has no general judicial‑review jurisdiction to revisit HMRC’s decision to issue follower notices beyond the statutory appeal grounds in s214, and that the legislative purpose of follower notices is to discourage continuation of disputes after a final judicial ruling denying the asserted advantage — making a posture of merely “seeing how litigation plays out” unlikely to be reasonable.