Mohammad Farrokhshad v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 24 June 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 954 (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 appeal challenged follower‑notice (FN) penalties issued to Mr Farrokhshad for tax years 2004–05 to 2006–07. The Tribunal admitted a late appeal, found the FNs valid and issued in time, held that withdrawal from the scheme did not satisfy the statutory "corrective action" and that it was not reasonable not to take the prescribed steps, and confirmed HMRC's reduced penalty total of £33,349.49 (originally £42,446.90). The appeal was otherwise 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: high
The Tribunal treated the statutory definition of "corrective action" in s 208(5)–(6) as exclusive: acts such as withdrawing from a tax‑avoidance scheme do not satisfy that statutory requirement, and failure to take the prescribed steps by the due date supports imposition of FN penalties; the Tribunal also noted its jurisdiction is confined to the statutory appeal grounds and cannot substitute broader supervision of HMRC conduct.
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 expressed that sympathy for the appellant's anxiety or stress does not provide a basis for relief where the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review HMRC's conduct, and indicated that a payment made following an accelerated payment notice will not, without more (e.g. inclusion in a statement of liabilities), be treated as discharging separate FN liabilities.
Warning
Chunk contains repeated passages, formatting errors and some textual gaps which made parsing repetitive but did not change the recorded findings. Chunk notes contain repeated passages, formatting errors and some textual gaps; they appear materially summary but may omit parts of the full reasoning.