William Stockler v HMRC

Decision date: 10 January 2022

Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 132 (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 case concerns Mr Stockler's application for a tribunal direction requiring HMRC to issue a closure notice for his 2017–18 self‑assessment arising from BPRA‑related partnership loss claims. HMRC had opened partnership enquiries (Maven Cardiff and Stanley Dock) which gave rise to deemed enquiries into partners' individual returns; HMRC said further information (including possible VOA valuation) was needed. The Tribunal found HMRC was entitled to continue the 2017–18 enquiry while relevant partnership enquiries remained open and refused the application for a direction to issue a closure notice.

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 partnership enquiry properly opened within the statutory window operates as a deemed enquiry into each partner's partnership‑related aspects of their individual return, and where ongoing partnership enquiries materially affect the correctness of partnership‑related claims, a tribunal should refuse a direction requiring a closure notice if HMRC reasonably needs further enquiries.

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 clearer if HMRC's opening correspondence had expressly identified the Maven Cardiff Partnership losses, though this did not invalidate the 2017–18 enquiry; it also noted the scale and complexity of HMRC's wider BPRA investigations and public‑interest considerations in permitting broad or continuing enquiries.