The Recruitment Crowd (Yorkshire) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 30 June 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 975 (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
HMRC issued an information notice to The Recruitment Crowd (Yorkshire) Ltd (RCYL) under Schedule 36 FA 2008 seeking documents and information relating to payroll and RTI variance. The First-tier Tribunal found the notice was in substance directed at the tax positions of third parties in RCYL's supply chain rather than RCYL's own tax position, and set the notice aside for failing to satisfy paragraph 1 and the conditions B/C of paragraph 21. The Tribunal also rejected HMRC's reliance on paragraph 29(2) to make items unappealable because HMRC did not identify specific statutory provisions showing the requested items were statutory records.
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
When HMRC relies on paragraph 29(2) to render requested documents unappealable, it must identify specific statutory provisions establishing each requested item as a "statutory record." Further, an information notice issued under paragraph 1 (and the linked conditions in paragraph 21) must be directed at checking the tax position of the addressee; if the notice in reality targets third parties' tax positions it falls outside those provisions.
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 that it would have been preferable for HMRC to explain within the notice why particular requests were treated as statutory records, although failing to do so is not necessarily fatal. The Tribunal also commented that broadly framed requests for all contracts or extensive bank and invoice materials may be unreasonable and liable to be set aside.