Barclays Bank PLC & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 9 January 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 27 (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 whether HMRC could amend its statement of case beyond the specific "no provision" outcome stated in partial closure notices (PCNs) issued in August 2022, in relation to transfer‑pricing/TIOPA adjustments arising from Barclays' purchases of Newfoundland senior notes (and related 2008 securitisation). The First‑tier Tribunal held the PCNs' operative conclusion was that the actual provision differed from the arm's‑length provision (so TIOPA applies), and that the PCNs' stated reason (disregard/no provision) did not confine HMRC to that single remedy; HMRC was allowed to amend its case to advance alternative arm's‑length adjustments and to refer to the 2008 transactions, subject to directions and safeguards against ambush.
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
A closure or partial closure notice must be read in context; its operative conclusion is whether the actual provision differs from the arm's‑length provision, and reasons given in the notice do not necessarily limit the Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider alternative lawful approaches to resolving the same subject matter identified in the PCN (so HMRC may advance alternative reasons and adjustments within the scope of the enquiry, provided the taxpayer is not ambushed).
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 judgment suggested (obiter) that modern PCN templates separating conclusions and reasons should not be treated as creating watertight compartments that restrict HMRC's ability to advance alternative lawful arguments on the same subject, and that the public interest in correct taxation supports permitting such further arguments where appropriate, subject to protection against unfair surprise to the taxpayer.