Roger Murphy v The Commissioners for HMRC

Roger Murphy v The Commissioners for HMRC

Schedule 1B TMA applies to share loss relief claims under s.574 ICTA, so the claim relates to the later year (2006-07), not the earlier year (2005-06). The claim was not made 'in' the 2005-06 return as it did not affect the tax calculation, so HMRC validly opened enquiries under Schedule 1A TMA and s.9A TMA. Both closure notices were valid as a reasonable recipient would understand them to deny all relief claimed, despite incorrect figures. Section 114 TMA cures any defects in the notices.

Parties
Appellant: Roger Murphy; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / Upper Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appellant's appeal dismissed; HMRC's cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Share Loss Relief, Procedural Validity of Enquiry and Closure Notices, Application of Schedule 1 a and 1 B TMA, Statutory Interpretation
Tax Law Administrative Law Income Tax Share Loss Relief Procedural Validity of Enquiry and Closure Notices Application of Schedule 1 a and 1 B TMA Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Murphy

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / Upper Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Schedule 1B TMA applies to share loss relief claims under s.574 ICTA
  2. 2 Whether the claim for share loss relief was made 'in' the 2005-06 return or outside it
  3. 3 Validity of HMRC's enquiry and closure notices under Schedule 1A and s.9A/s.28A TMA

Ratio Decidendi

Schedule 1B TMA applies to share loss relief claims under s.574 ICTA, so the claim relates to the later year (2006-07), not the earlier year (2005-06). The claim was not made 'in' the 2005-06 return as it did not affect the tax calculation, so HMRC validly opened enquiries under Schedule 1A TMA and s.9A TMA. Both closure notices were valid as a reasonable recipient would understand them to deny all relief claimed, despite incorrect figures. Section 114 TMA cures any defects in the notices.

Court Disposition

Appellant's appeal dismissed; HMRC's cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Both HMRC closure notices (Schedule 1A TMA and s.28A TMA) upheld as valid and effective to deny share loss relief.
  • FTT decision set aside in part and remade to reflect validity of Schedule 1A TMA enquiry and closure notice.