One Call Insurance Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 11 March 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 184 (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
One Call challenged a Schedule 36 information notice served by HMRC seeking documents about its use of a remuneration trust (WUT No 1 Ltd). The Tribunal found HMRC's investigation raised genuine tax issues and that many requested items were reasonably required to check corporation tax, PAYE and NIC positions, with limited rewording of some items. HMRC established a prima facie case that documents were in One Call's possession or de facto power and One Call had not shown serious attempts to obtain third‑party documents; the notice was varied in wording where appropriate and otherwise confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.
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
Where HMRC shows a genuine, legitimate investigation into a taxpayer's tax position, Schedule 36 may compel documents reasonably required to check that position; a prima facie case that documents are in the taxpayer's possession or power shifts the burden to the taxpayer to demonstrate serious attempts to obtain third‑party documents. "Power" for these purposes can include de facto influence as well as legal entitlement.
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 indicated that HMRC may properly require documents that clarify the background and implementation of remuneration trust arrangements beyond narrowly defined financial records, provided relevance to the identified issues is demonstrated. The Tribunal also criticised “stone‑walling” and suggested that partial compliance after stays may justify closer scrutiny of whether a taxpayer made serious attempts to obtain third‑party documents.