Darren Locke v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 7 August 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 956 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 penalties imposed by HMRC under Schedule 41 FA 2008 for Mr Locke’s failure to notify chargeability to income tax for 2020/21 and 2021/22 in respect of rental income. The Tribunal found Mr Locke had a statutory obligation to notify, that his failures were deliberate but not concealed, and that HMRC’s penalty calculations and the reductions applied were appropriate. 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: medium

From the judgment, a taxpayer’s prior contact with HMRC (including a historical letter saying HMRC did not propose to send returns) does not relieve the ongoing statutory duty to notify when taxable income later arises; where a taxpayer knows of the notification obligation, is in a position to notify, but does not do so and fails to seek advice or keep records indicating a notification was required, the failure can properly be characterised as deliberate but not concealed for Schedule 41 purposes.

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 noted (obiter) that asking HMRC for further reliefs after the compliance review has concluded does not oblige HMRC to re-open the check and that an actual claim for overpayment/relief is required before there is an appealable decision. The judgment also referenced HMRC handbook guidance as illustrating factors relevant to categorising “deliberate but not concealed” behaviour.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML