A Nurse v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 15 May 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 722 (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 NHS bank worker who gave a colleague access to her Government Gateway login and whose Self Assessment returns (2019–20 to 2022–23) included large home-to-work travel claims submitted by that colleague. The First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC's closure notice for 2022–23 and discovery assessments for 2019–20 to 2021–22, finding the decision‑maker had a subjective belief with an objectively reasonable basis that tax was underpaid; but the Tribunal cancelled the Schedule 24 penalties by applying special reduction (with full mitigation for cooperation). The appellant remains liable to repay the tax recovered.
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
A discovery assessment can be validly upheld where the officer both subjectively believes tax has been underpaid and that belief is objectively reasonable; passing personal Government Gateway credentials to a third party and failing to question implausible repayment claims can amount to a failure to take reasonable care under Schedule 24; and the Tribunal may exercise its broad discretion under the special reduction provision to reduce penalties to nil where vulnerability, exploitation by third parties, HMRC process shortcomings and narrow margins of carelessness make that appropriate.
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 (non-bindingly) that tribunals may take a more inquisitorial approach with unrepresented or vulnerable litigants; that automated HMRC repayment systems that “process now check later” may insufficiently filter evidently false claims and are a relevant consideration in exercising special reduction; and that victimhood and financial loss to third parties (such as fees paid to a fraudster) can be relevant when assessing the fairness of penalties.