Richard Bucknell v The Commissioners for HMRC

Richard Bucknell v The Commissioners for HMRC

The Tribunal found that the Appellant was the sole shareholder during the relevant tax years, as evidenced by Companies House records and absence of contrary evidence. Therefore, all dividends were correctly assessed on him. The Discovery Assessment and Closure Notices were valid, competent, and in time. The Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show the assessments were excessive or incorrect. The omissions of dividend income, benefit in kind, and HICBC were due to careless or deliberate behaviour. The penalty was validly imposed. The appeals were dismissed and assessments increased to include undeclared child benefit.

Parties
Appellant: Richard Bucknell; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery Assessment, Closure Notices, Self Assessment Tax Returns, Penalties for Inaccuracies, High Income Child Benefit Charge, Directors’ Loan Account, Dividends, Shareholding Disputes
Tax Law Discovery Assessment Closure Notices Self Assessment Tax Returns Penalties for Inaccuracies High Income Child Benefit Charge Directors’ Loan Account Dividends +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Bucknell

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conditions for making a Discovery Assessment under Section 29 TMA 1970 are met
  2. 2 Whether the Discovery Assessment is competent, in time and correct
  3. 3 Whether the Discovery Assessment was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Appellant was the sole shareholder during the relevant tax years, as evidenced by Companies House records and absence of contrary evidence. Therefore, all dividends were correctly assessed on him. The Discovery Assessment and Closure Notices were valid, competent, and in time. The Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show the assessments were excessive or incorrect. The omissions of dividend income, benefit in kind, and HICBC were due to careless or deliberate behaviour. The penalty was validly imposed. The appeals were dismissed and assessments increased to include undeclared child benefit.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Assessments for 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 increased to include liability for undeclared Child Benefit
  • Penalty assessment for 2021/22 upheld