RK Hosking v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 3 October 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 943 (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 case concerns an application to stay a First-tier Tribunal appeal against a £300 Schedule 36 penalty for failure to comply with an information notice concerning payments via Ortho Solutions Limited Remuneration Trust (OSLRT) and related loan arrangements. The Tribunal refused the stay, holding that the validity of OSLRT and related foreign/arbitral proceedings were irrelevant to the limited issues in the penalty appeal (compliance, validity of the penalty procedure, and reasonable excuse). The penalty appeal was ordered to proceed on those statutory issues.
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 Tribunal held that in a Schedule 36 penalty appeal its remit is narrow and does not extend to relitigating the substantive validity of a third-party trust or an information notice where the notice was issued and its review concluded under statutory review provisions; separate foreign arbitral or court proceedings about the trust do not, without more, justify a stay of the domestic penalty appeal because they do not alter the limited statutory issues of non‑compliance, procedural validity, or reasonable excuse.
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 (obiter) that alleging a trust is void ab initio, or that documents are therefore “void,” does not by itself show that the requested information was not reasonably required for HMRC’s enquiry, and that a challenge to the validity of the notice should properly have been made at review/appeal rather than deferred to foreign proceedings.