Malcome Oreain Robinson v The Director of Border Revenue

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against discovery assessments, issued on 18 July 2023, in respect of income tax for the tax years ending 2007/08-2016/17. The total sum in dispute is £112,668. Mr Robinson did not file self-assessments for any of those years.

2. The dispute relates to rental income received from five flats at 126 Babington Road, SW16. The core factual dispute is whether there was a profit: it is accepted that the properties were let and rents received for some of this period. Mr Robinson says there was no profit as (i) the expenses (principally mortgage interest payments) exceeded the rental receipts; (ii) a confiscation order took away the rental income; and (iii) in any event the properties were not let after 2015. HMRC say that none of these claims are adequately evidenced, despite HMRC having repeatedly requested appropriate evidence, including by the use of statutory powers. HMRC also submit that Mr Robinson’s evidence is to be approached with caution, given his lack of cooperation with the enquiry.

3. The structure of this decision is as follows. We first give an overview of the hearing. We then summarise the law and issues in dispute. We then summarise the parties’ cases. Finally we make findings. We begin our findings with a detailed narrative account, including discussion of the documents which have been provided. We then make specific findings on the relevant issues. Hearing

4. We have considered: (1) a hearing bundle of (445 pages); (2) an authorities bundle (59 pages); (3) the appellant’s skeleton argument (in the body of an email of 21 January 2026 and, when printed, 4 pages); (4) HMRC’s skeleton argument (17 pages).

5. We heard witness evidence from: (1) Mr Robinson, who adopted his witness statement of 25 July 2025; and (2) HMRC Officer Matt Behan.

6. Officer Behan was not the officer in the case, who has now retired. Accordingly, other than the documents he exhibited, his testimony was of limited assistance.

7. We approach the evidence of Mr Robinson with caution. He repeatedly claimed to have provided documents to HMRC that were not in the bundle. Given his lack of cooperation with HMRC’s enquiry, evident from his failure to respond in a timely manner and to produce documents, for which he was assessed for penalties, makes us cautious of the reliability of the evidence he has given. We find his explanations for why some documents were produced late into the enquiry, or after the discovery assessments , implausible. For example he claimed that the NatWest statements for the period 19 June 2009 to 19 June 2015 were only found when he moved house. It is unclear why he could not provide statements for subsequent years. Mr Robinson claims the account was closed by NatWest in 2015. However, there is nothing in the final entry that indicates the account was closed. Mr Robinson also claimed that he was unable to provide certain documents to the Tribunal due to non-disclosure undertakings he had given to the banks: we find this implausible. It was unclear whether he had kept any records for the flat rentals, for example records of rents received and expenses incurred. In answer to a question from the tribunal he said he had initially then it became difficult to apportion repairs between flats so he gave up. Law

8. Part 3 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 (“IT(TOI)A 2005”) imposes a charge to tax on property income. A person's UK property business (s.264 IT(TOI)A 2005) consists of: “(a) every business which the person carries on for generating income from land in the United Kingdom, and (b) every transaction which the person enters into for that purpose otherwise than in the course of such a business.”

9. The person receiving or entitled to the profits is liable to tax on the full amount of the profits arising in the tax year: ss.268, 270, 271 IT(TOI)A 2005.

10. Any person liable to income tax for any year of assessment must give notice to HMRC that he is so chargeable: s.7 Taxes Management Act 1970 (“ TMA 1970 ”).

11. An inspector may make an assessment, to the best of his judgment, of an insufficiency of tax he has discovered: s.29 TMA 1970 . The ordinary time limit for discovery assessments is four years after the end of the year of assessment to which it relates: s.34 TMA 1970. However, this period is extended to 20 years after the end of the year of assessment to which it relates in circumstances, including, where the loss is attributable to the failure by a person to comply with an obligation under s.7 TMA 1970: s.36 TMA 1970. The requirements for a discovery assessment are discussed in Jerome Anderson v HMRC [2018] UKUT 159 (TCC) ; [2018] STC 1210 , including the subjective and objective test. Issues in dispute

12. The parties agree that the issues in dispute are: (1) was there a failure to notify chargeability; (2) did the inspector make a discovery of a loss of tax; (3) was the assessment best judgment; and (4) should the Tribunal alter the amounts of the discovery assessment? Appellant’s case

13. He says that in 2007 he purchased five leasehold flats at 126 Babington Road with the intention of letting them to tenants and using the rents to service the associated mortgages. He maintains that the rental activity was never profitable; rents were frequently unpaid or late, there were significant void periods, and letting agent fees, repairs and maintenance costs regularly exceeded receipts. He says that the rental accounts he provided for several of the years show net losses, and that this position is supported by the bank and mortgage statements he supplied during the enquiry.

14. He accepts that the flats were let during parts of the period from 2007 to 2015, but he states that the position changed materially following enforcement action by Lambeth Council. An enforcement notice was issued in 2008 requiring reversion of the property to a single dwelling, and he was later convicted of non‑compliance. In 2016 a confiscation order was made against him, which he says resulted in the forfeiture of any rent received. He further states that by 2015 the mortgage lenders had taken possession of the property, and that from that point there was no rental activity, the flats were empty, and he paid council tax on that basis. He disputes that any income arose in the later years assessed.

15. He argues that he cooperated with HMRC’s enquiries.

16. He challenges HMRC’s computation methodology, in particular the use of Retail Price Index‑based projections and open‑source rental advertisements. He says these approaches bear no relation to the rents actually achieved or the substantial expenses incurred, and do not represent a reasonable estimate of taxable profits. He also notes that he was not provided with the Lambeth Council information relied on by HMRC, and therefore was unable to comment on or correct it. HMRC’s case

17. HMRC’s position is that Mr Robinson was chargeable to income tax on rental profits arising from five flats at 126 Babington Road for each of the years 2007/08 to 2016/17, and that he failed to notify that chargeability within the statutory period. On this basis, HMRC say the discovery assessments issued on 20 July 2023 were validly made under section 29 TMA 1970 and within the extended twenty‑year time limit in s. 36(1A)(b) TMA 1970.

18. HMRC state that a discovery was made in July 2022 when Lambeth Council supplied information identifying named occupants paying council tax for each of the five flats throughout the period from 2007 to 2017. They say this evidence established continuous letting activity and indicated that rental income had been received but not declared. HMRC submit that the statutory tests for discovery are met: the officer formed a genuine belief that tax had been understated, and that belief was one a reasonable officer could hold.

19. HMRC further contend that throughout the enquiry, repeated requests were made for documentary evidence of rental income and expenses, including a Schedule 36 notice issued in April 2019. They say that although Mr Robinson or his representatives supplied some rental accounts and bank statements, the information provided was incomplete and did not permit HMRC to verify the claimed losses or identify the properties to which the figures related. In particular, HMRC say no satisfactory explanation was provided for the expenses shown in the rental accounts, nor for the consistent reporting of net losses. They also note that much of the banking material provided related to years outside those under assessment.

20. In the absence of reliable evidence, HMRC say they were required to make assessments to the best of their judgement. They explain that the officer therefore projected rental income using the Retail Price Index, supported by open‑source material such as publicly available rental advertisements for the flats. They say that occupancy information from Lambeth Council allowed them to determine, on a flat‑by‑flat basis, the periods during which income should be attributed, and that a standard deduction for expenses was applied to arrive at net rental figures. HMRC state that this method accords with their internal guidance for making reasonable estimates where primary records are not forthcoming.

21. HMRC do not accept the appellant’s assertion that no rental income was received after 2015. They rely on the council’s occupancy records, which show tenants in several flats beyond that date, including up to 2017. They further state that the confiscation order obtained in 2016 does not show there was no income; rather, it indicates that rent had been received and was then subject to confiscation. They say that neither the enforcement proceedings nor the later negligence claim alters the chargeability of rental income under the tax legislation.

22. In summary, HMRC invite the Tribunal to conclude that a valid discovery was made, that there was a failure to notify chargeability for each of the years concerned, that the assessments represent a reasonable best‑judgement estimate in the circumstances, and that they should therefore be upheld. Findings of Fact Chronological findings

23. On 18 January 2019 HMRC wrote to Mr Robinson, saying: “In order to bring your tax affairs up to date I am enclosing a questionnaire so that you can provide me with full details of all your sources of income for the past six tax years. Please fully complete and return this to me together with copies of your bank statements from all current, savings and credit card accounts held solely in your name or jointly with another person for the periods”

24. Unfortunately we do not have that questionnaire in the bundle. But it is clear that all sources of income and all bank statements for a six year period (so from 2012) are being requested.

25. On 1 April 2019 a formal notice was issued under FA 2008 Sch 36 para 1. The information that was required included: “4. Please confirm whether you receive or have ever received any other income which you have not already mentioned for example taxable income such as rents as a landlord and / or investment income; capital gains from the sale of assets e.g. property or valuables. Alternatively, non-taxable income such as windfalls, gambling/lottery wins, inheritance? If so, please provide the details.

5. Please provide me with details of account numbers for all bank, building society and hold or have an interest in here in the UK or abroad. 6 Please provide Bank statements for the period 2014-15 to 2016-17 for accounts you hold on your own or Jointly.

7. Confirm the addresses of any property owned, details of the purchases and sale and dates you lived in the property. Complete the enclosed property questionnaire.”

26. On 29 April 2019 Mr Sisimayi responded, on behalf of Mr Robinson, as follows: “Please see attached for your consideration. Mr O M Robinson is undergoing a lot of stressful experiences in his personal life. He has asked for more time. In the meantime, you can have an overview of his tax affairs as per attached accounts. We await your comments.”

27. Enclosed with that letter were accounts for the six years ended 31 March 2010 to 2015. Each of the accounts was prepared by Baptiste & Co and dated 27 July 2015. Mr Robinson’s evidence is that they were not prepared for tax purposes but for the legal proceedings regarding the confiscation order. The accounts did not break down amounts for the five flats. Totals were given of the total amounts under each heading for each year; there was no itemisation.

28. On 15 April 2020 Mr Robinson was notified that the enquiry was paused due to the pandemic. On 1 December 2020 HMRC wrote again to Mr Robinson, noting: “There are outstanding information requested from you by my colleague which has not been provided up to date. Please provide mortgage loan statements / documentary evidence to support the high expenses claimed as Bank interests relating to your rental property/ies.”

29. A response was required by 30 December 2020. However, no response was received. On 15 March 2021 HMRC wrote again to Mr Robinson, noting that on 22 May 2019 a £300 penalty charge had been applied for non-compliance and a daily penalty applied, but the penalty was then delayed until 8 July 2019 as HMRC had been told Mr Robinson was suffering personal issues. The letter continued: “My colleague wrote to you to produce Mortgage loan statements regarding properties with mortgage. Details of the properties how much you purchased for and the date you sold and the price sold. … If I do not receive the information requested by the 12 April 2021 I will raise Revenue assessment for all the properties based on the rental market value when the properties were purchased to the present rental market value.”

30. On 12 April 2021 HMRC wrote to Mr Robinson: “I have enclosed analysis report based on the figures you provided for each tax year. Please produce full breakdown of rent and expenses you incur for all the properties for me to quantify the figure you have submitted in the accounts. If I do not receive information and documents I have asked for I will calculate rental income based on (RPI) Rental Price Index to establish rental value and raise revenue assessment without further notice. Therefore it is in your best interest to provide information and documents I have requested. Please let me have your reply by the 26 April.2021.”

31. The enclosed analysis was as follows: Tax Year Rental income Repair & Maintenance Bank interest Accountant fee Net loss 2009-10 46,439 6,641 41,490 300 1,992 2010-11 31,142 7,630 41,476 300 18,264 2011-12 46,439 6,361 41,490 300 1,712 2012-13 50,315 15,551 36,607 300 2,143 2013-14 43,951 15,270 34,666 300 6,285 2014-15 17,211 4,947 11,524 300 Nil Total 235,497 56,400 207,253 1,800 30,396

32. That analysis essentially reproduces, in tabular form, the accounts sent by Mr Robinson on 29 April 2019.

33. On 5 May 2021 HMRC wrote to Mr Robinson: “I spoke with your accountant L Wilson today and advised him I have not received any information or documents from yourself since the enquiry started in 2019. He said he will speak to you and call me tomorrow. I told him I need the following information/documents by the 21 May.

1. 3 year bank statement of the account held in your name and jointly held.

2. Mortgage statement for all properties.

3. Purchase price and the date how purchased

4. If any property sold date and price sold

5. Break down of rental income for each properties

6. Provide copies of rent Tenancy agreement

7. Evidence of expenses incurred for each of the proper” [sic]

34. On 21 May 2021 Duffield Harrison Solicitors LLP wrote on Mr Robinson’s behalf to HMRC providing a narrative regarding the purchase of the five flats. The letter stated the amounts the flats were purchased for and stated this was financed by way of mortgage loans. The letter then provided the following narrative of litigation that Mr Robinsn had been involved in: “On 27th June 2008 the London Borough of Lambeth as the Local Authority issued an Enforcement Notice pursuant to section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 alleging a breach of planning control within paragraph (a) of section 1 71 A(1) of the 1990 Act at the Property. A copy of the original Enforcement Notice is enclosed. Following various inspections and correspondence and attempts by our client through discussion with the Mortgagees and the Council to fund the works necessary to comply with the Enforcement Notice, Mr Robinson pleaded guilty to non-compliance with the enforcement notice on 6 June 2012. In or around March 2013 Lambeth commenced further enforcement proceedings and Mr Robinson was again convicted on 19 January 2015. Following this Lambeth applied to the Crown Court under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 against Mr Robinson. On 26 February 2016 a Confiscation Order was made in the sum of £288,801.28. In 2015 Mr Robinson brought a claim in negligence at the High Court of Justice Chancery Division against his former solicitors Ness & Co. who had acted for him in the purchase of the five leasehold properties. The Trial of his claim took place 2017 at which he was successful. The court ordered that the Defendant pay Mr Robinson £134,927.43 in damages and declared that the Defendant was to indemnify Mr Robinson for any amount which he had to pay under the Confiscation Order together with an Order for costs. The Defendant (through it insurer) subsequently paid the full sum due under the Confiscation Order to Mr Robinson who paid it to the Court to discharge the liability. The freehold title was transferred to our client the Leases were surrendered and the Leasehold titles closed. The remedial works necessary to comply with the enforcement notice were carried out at the cost of Ness & Co., and the property has then subsequently been sold by the Mortgagees in possession. We enclose copies of various Registers of Title for your information. We are taking steps to obtain further information but this requires the input of third parties. In the meantime, please let us know if we can be of further assistance.”

35. Enclosed with that letter from Duffield Harrison Solicitors LLP were: (1) an enforcement notice, dated 8 August 2008. The notice stipulates: “5. WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO A. Cease the unauthorised use of the premises as 5 self-contained flats and remove all internal partitions and divisions, kitchen units and appliances which facilitate the unauthorised use; B. Remove the unauthorised roof extension and reinstate the roof slopes of the premises as existed prior to the breach of planning control; C. Remove the unauthorised single storey extension and reinstate the rear elevation of the premises as existed prior to the breach of planning control; D. "Remove all resultant rubble and debris from the premises.” (2) Official copies of the register of title for each of the five flats. These show leases of 125 years, from 1 January 2006. The proprietorship register records, on 10 May 2007, a charge dated 22 January 2007 in favour of Oakwood Homeloans Limited. That charge is also recorded on the charges register. The leases are each shown as determined on 12 June 2017.

36. On 24 May 2021 Mr Robinson sent HMRC three emails attaching: (1) bank statements for HSBC Account No *****752 for the periods (i) July 2018 to October 2018; (ii) March 2019 to April 2021; (2) statements for Nationwide Account No *****328 for the period March 2019 to April 2021

37. Again, on 27 September 2021 HMRC wrote to Mr Robinson requesting information. The letter began by reiterating the information request pursuant to the Schedule 36 notice and summarising the bank statements that had been sent on 24 May 2021. The following information was then requested by 20 October 2021: “Between 2007 to 2017 did you let out any of the flat? Give rental income details for each of the flats. When was 5 Napier road E11 3JJ and Flat 36 Macbeth House, Arden Estate N1 5IG purchased? Also were the properties ever let out? Give rental income details. Also confirm that you do not hold any other bank/building society account other than the ones above. Once again I ask you to provide bank/building society statement for the year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 accounts held solely or in jointly.”

38. On 1 April 2022 HMRC wrote to Lambeth Council requesting information on the persons liable to Council Tax for the five flats, exercising their powers under FA 2011 Schedule 23. On 4 July 2022 Lambeth Council responded with the following information: “ Flat 1 10/05/07 – 15/03/14 – Miss C Grava-Onwunzuligbo 17/06/14 – 19/03/17 – Ms M Bello 19/03/17 – 03/08/18 – Mr O Robinson Flat 2 19/04/07 – 18/04/08 – Miss S Bullen 07/12/09 – 01/09/12 – Ms T King 01/09/12 – 10/10/16 – Mrs A De Silva 10/10/16 – 03/08/18 – Mr O Robinson Flat 3 01/09/07 – 06/06/15 – Mr M Talabi 06/06/15 – 03/08/18 – Mr O Robinson Flat 4 14/05/07 – 26/09/09 Miss K Sinclair 3/12/09 – 10/10/16 – Mr S Lear 10/10/16 – 03/08/18 – Mr O Robinson Flat 5 04/05/07 – 01/09/12 – Mrs A De Silva 01/09/12 – 03/08/18 – Mr O Robinson”

39. On 28 October 2021 Mr Robinson emailed HMRC as follows, in response: “1. There is No mortgage - see solicitor letter on planning enforcement order and confiscation order.

2. Tax Years: 2007-2017 2007-2009 - Not rented. 2010 2015 - Rented (Accounts submitted by Baptiste & Co) 2015-2017 - Not rented

3. 5 Napier road - bought in 2001 36 Macbeth house - bought in 2003

4. The above properties were not rented.

5. Other accounts : I do not hold any other account, I am re-sending the account for those which were sent through last time, but not delivered by email.

6. See attached Council tax bills for which Is still outstanding.”

40. On 16 November 2021 Mr Robinson sent HMRC: (1) statements for Nationwide e-Savings Account No *****714 for the period 31 March 2018 to 15 January 2020; (2) a statement from Preferred showing the total amount outstanding on the mortgage on 36, MacBeth House as at 1 February 2021; (3) an invoice from Duffield Harrison Solicitors LLP, dated 21 May 2021, for professional fees of £460 in relation to the dispute concerning 126 Babington Road; (4) a letter from Lambeth Council, dated 29 July 2021, which states: “On 24 May 2019 Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court granted a liability order against you for non payment of council tax totalling £2191.51. Costs of £104.00 were incurred. A balance of £1988.14 is currently owing under this order and this amount should be paid in full by 15 August 2021.” (5) a council tax summons, dated 3 August 2021. (6) “archive fiche” in respect of an instant access ISA for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020.

41. On 6 July 2022 HMRC wrote to Mr Robinson: “Information on hand suggests 126 Babington Road was converted into 5 flats and were all rented out separately in 2007 to 2018. I Note that on 27 June 2008 Lambeth Council issued Enforcement Notice to you and in 2016 Confiscation order was made against you for the sum of £288,801.26. You were successful with the claim you brought against your former solicitor (Ness & Co). You were awarded £134,927 in damages by the court and also ordered solicitor (Ness & Co) to reimburse you £288,801.28 confiscation order and other cost made by the court. Can you confirm how much rental income you were in receipt for each flats? How was the rental income received? Please provided breakdown for all the 5 flats expenses you incurred for the above period. Please reply by the 4 August 2022.”

42. The information that HMRC had received from Lambeth Council was not included with that letter. A version (with names redacted) of it was first supplied to Mr Robinson on 13 March 2025, in the calculation methodology. An unredacted version was first supplied to Mr Robinson in the hearing bundle, on 22 August 2025. Mr Robinson therefore had access to these names for five months prior to the hearing, but has made no representations in respect of them. While Mr Robinson claimed that he was disadvantaged by not having access to the Lambeth Council letter, we consider he had access to an unredacted version for a sufficiently long period before the hearing not to be disadvantaged.

43. On 21 September 2022 Mr Robinson emailed HMRC: “Thank you for your letter of the 6th July 2022. Please note I have no additional information to submit from what has already been submitted. HMRC can conclude its assessment outlining their views and concern knowing that there is no further information to add to what had been given by the accountant and solicitor/court . All information has been submitted.”

44. On 20 March 2023 HMRC wrote to Mr Robinson stating that the accounts submitted by his accounts were not acceptable to HMRC. The letter records that: “On 21 September Duffield Harrison (solicitors) forward documents in regards to confiscation order for a sum of £288,801 by London Brough of Lambeth. You brought a claim against your former solicitors (Ness & Co) in February 2016. Trial took place in 2017 which went in your favour. The court ordered Ness & co to pay you £134,927 in damages. Also Ness & Co was to indemnify you for the amount you had to pay (£288,801) under the confiscation order together with cost to London Borough of Lambeth”

45. That correspondence is not in the bundle. The letter concluded: “HMRC information suggest you received following rental income for each of the flats from 2007 to 2018. • Flat 1 10 May 2007 -19 March 2017 – Total £103,786.00 • Flat 2 07 December 2009 -10 October 2016 – Total £75,495.00 • Flat 3 01 September 2007- 06 June 2015 – Total £73,287.00 • Flat 4 14 May 2007-10 October 2016 – Total £76,872.00 • Flat 5 04 May 2007-01 September 2012 – Total £42,796.00 If you disagree with the figures above let me have your reason and what you believe is true figure. Unless you provide explanation, evidence and expense incurred by the 31 March 2023Revenue Assessment will be raised as you proposed in your email of 21 September 2022 for the amount above.”

46. Mr Robinson emailed HMRC on 30 March 2023: “Thank you for your letter dated 20 March 2023. I disagree with your reasons and assumptions. Let me put this in simple term s.

1. The Planning Enforcement Order and Confiscation Order were together.

2. All information that was requested by you previously, was sent to you.

3. The Confiscation amount you continue to highlight which is rental value claim by Lambeth. Council was not paid to me.

4. The Planning Enforcement Order is the forfeiture of the properties, while the Banks and Insurer agreed about the order of works.

5. The Non-compliance to The Planning Enforcement Order prohibits the rental of the flats. Failure to do this is an imprisonable offence. (Please refer to the Planning Order.)”

6. You have highlighted damage costs. Please note that there was nominal payment to Legal cost by me before as 75% of damages claim were taken by Legal cost.

47. On 11 July 2023 Mr Robinson provided HMRC with: (1) a NatWest bank statement for the calendar year 2007; (2) a tenancy agreement for Flat 4 for a 12-month period commencing on 14 May 2007 at a monthly rent of £800; (3) a tenancy agreement for Flat 1 for a 12-month period commencing on 1 September 2012 at a monthly rent of £900; (4) Mortgage statement letters from Oakwood Homeloans for Flat 1 (31 January 2019); Flat 230 June 2019); and Flat 3 (3 April 2019); and (5) mortgage statements from Oakwood Homeloans for Flat 1 for the periods ending 31 March 2007-2018. This specifies it is interest only.

48. On 25 July 2023 Mr Robinson provided HMRC with: (1) a claimant’s schedule for costs for Mr Robinson’s action against Ness & Co, his former solicitors, totalling £86,321.56; (2) an insurance invoice, dated 21 August 2021, for £1,018.15; and (3) statements for NatWest Account No *****372 for the period 19 June 2009 to 19 June 2015.

49. On 18 July 2023 HMRC wrote to Mr Robinson with their decision stating the amounts for which assessments would be made.

50. On 1 September 2023 Mr Robinson wrote to HMRC requesting an independent review. In the letter he stated “My opinion is that I have supplied all the necessary information to you during the course of this inquiry”. On 19 September Mr Robinson confirmed he was appealing the assessment.

51. On 9 October 2023 HMRC sent Mr Robinson a review acknowledgment letter. On 22 December 2023 HMRC wrote to Mr Robinson informing him that they had been unable to conclude the review within the statutory period so they were required under s. 49 E (8) TMA 1970 to uphold the decision in the figures provided in the view of the matter letter.

52. On 20 January 2024 Mr Robinson made his appeal to the Tribunal. HMRC filed their statement of case on 9 August 2024.

53. On 23 January 2025 Mr Robinson wrote requesting HMRC’s methodology use to calculate the amounts due under the discovery assessments. On 13 March 2025 HMRC responded with an 8-page explanation of the calculation methodology. HMRC’s calculation methodology

54. Despite HMRC’s repeated request for information by the time of the discovery assessment Mr Robinson had provided HMRC with very little by way of relevant documentary evidence. Therefore HMRC had obtained the occupancy information from Lambeth Council and historic letting information from Zoopla.

55. In summary the process of calculation behind HMRC’s assessment was as follows: Methodology

56. In the absence of a breakdown of rental income and expenditure from Mr Robinson, the assessing officer proceeded by reference to third‑party information.

57. HMRC calculated the assessments on the basis that all five flats at 126 Babington Road were let during the years when Lambeth Council had stated that council tax was due from individuals other than Mr Robinson.

58. The assessing officer applied a monthly rent of £900 per flat on 5 April 2018 and used the retail prices index (“RPI”) to adjust that rent for earlier years. He then applied a 20% reduction to account for expenses. Why reasonable

59. We consider this methodology was wholly reasonable.

60. We consider it reasonable for HMRC to rely on information from Lambeth Council as to when the flats were occupied. While Mr Robinson claims there were tenant defaults and other periods where the flats were empty he has provided no evidence to substantiate this.

61. Mr Robinson has also claimed that the enforcement order prevented him letting the flats from 2015. However, it is unclear to us from the documentary evidence that there was a change in 2015. The terms of the notice in 2008 required that the properties cease to be used as flats. Whilst the 21 May 2021 letter from Duffield Harrison Solicitors LLP states that Mr Robinson was convicted in 2015, it says he was also convicted in 2012. If the 2012 conviction did not prevent him letting out the properties it is unclear why the 2015 conviction would. Accordingly we do not accept Mr Robinson’s evidence that he ceased to let the flats in 2015 and prefer the information provided from Lambeth Council as evidence as to when the flats were occupied.

62. It will be recalled that information on Zoopla showed flats were advertised to rent for £823.00 per month on 13 August 2010 and later for £1,100 per month on 11 June 2014. This methodology resulted in estimated rents of £822.77 in 2014 and £716.91 in 2010. We accept that the information on Zoopla shows the rate at which the flats were advertised, not at which they were let. However we would expect the figures to be similar. In any event the estimated figures are so significantly less than the advertised figure that we consider the estimate to be wholly reasonable, if anything a little low.

63. Further, we note also that the tenancy agreements provided by Mr Robinson show monthly rents of £800 in 2007 and £900 in 2012. the RPI adjusted estimated rents are £660.92 in 2007 and £780.30 in 2012. These estimated rents are substantially below the actual rents.

64. We find the RPI to be a well established objective measure to adjust prices to take account of inflation. It is wholly reasonable of HMRC to use it.

65. We also consider the deduction of 20% for expenses reasonable. We consider such a deduction normal for a property business. We acknowledge that the properties were mortgaged, but in the absence of particularised information regarding payments, we do not consider that anything more than a global deduction of 20% to cover all expenses is warranted.

66. We consider that the appellant could have obtained and provided HMRC documentation showing any actual payments for interest. No good explanation was provided as to why this was not done. At one stage the appellant suggested there were difficulties because the properties were repossessed. We do not consider that would prevent the appellant obtaining such information from the lenders. In any event he did not even suggest he had tried and certainly no documentary evidence of such attempts were provided.

67. Overall we find HMRC’s approach constitutes a structured and reasoned approach to quantifying the income on a best‑judgement basis. It is transparent, capable of external scrutiny, and derived from identifiable sources rather than conjecture. Should the Tribunal adjust the assessment in the light of the evidence

68. We do not consider any adjustments to the amount of HMRC’s discovery assessments are appropriate in the light of the evidence.

69. In submissions, Mr Sisimayi indicated he had, over the lunch break, been provided with particularised breakdowns of the income and expenditure in relation to each flat from Baptiste & Co. No documentary evidence was provided to support the figures that Mr Sisimayi read out. No explanation was given why such figures were able to be provided on the day of the hearing, but had not been provided before, despite HMRC’s repeated requests. No explanation was given as to the basis on which these figures had been calculated, and why any supporting documents (presumably tenancy agreements, receipts, invoices, management accounts) used to make such calculations had not been provided to HMRC, despite their repeated requests. We place no weight at all on these figures that Mr Sisimayi read out.

70. We acknowledge that the NatWest statements provided to the tribunal do evidence some payments to Oakwood Homeloans, the mortgage provider. However, it is unclear which flat these payments relate to. Whilst we have evidence that the mortgage on Flat 1 was interest only, there is no such evidence in relation to any of the other flats. In this case where documents have been only partially provided, despite a statutory notice to provide them, we consider it not appropriate to assume that those documents we have are a random representative sample. Thus we do not know whether and to what extent the payments to Oakwood Homeloans is interest or capital in respect of Flats 2-5. Nor do we know in respect of which flats the payments to Oakwood Homeloans were made.

71. We do not consider any deductions should be allowed in respect of the confiscation order. The order itself has not been produced. The letter from Duffield Harrison Solicitors LLP explains (in respect of Mr Robinson’s action against his former solicitors) that: “The court ordered that the Defendant… indemnify Mr Robinson for any amount which he had to pay under the Confiscation Order… The Defendant (through it insurer) subsequently paid the full sum due under the Confiscation Order to Mr Robinson who paid it to the Court to discharge the liability.”

72. Mr Robinson therefore retained the rents. That is sufficient for us to decide there should be no deduction in respect of any payment under the confiscation order. We note that, in any event, it is unclear to us that a payment under a confiscation order is deductible. However, as we heard no argument on this, we prefer not to express a view.

73. We note that the NatWest statements also provide income being received from individuals with similar names to those on the list of council tax liability provided by Lambeth Council. It does not however follow that all payments were made into this NatWest account. Mr Robinson said he also had a HSBC account from which he paid the mortgage on the property where he lived. We have only been provided with HSBC bank statements from 2018. Accordingly, the information that we have is again partial. Again, we consider it not appropriate to assume that those documents we have are a random representative sample.

74. In these circumstances we do not consider it appropriate to make any adjustments to the amounts in HMRC’s discovery assessment. We have found these to be best judgment and consider they represent the most reasonable estimate of the profits Mr Robinson received from the five flats in the relevant period. Discovery assessments

75. We have already found that the assessments are best judgment and found that they represent the most reasonable estimate of the profits Mr Robinson received from the five flats in the relevant period.

76. It follows that we find that in each of the relevant years he had an obligation to notify chargeability, but did not do so. That means the extended 20 year time limits are applicable and so the assessments are in-time.

77. We consider that the correspondence we have summarised clearly points to the officer having formed the subjective belief that there was an insufficiency of tax. We consider that the officer’s belief satisfied the objective test: it was a belief that a reasonable officer could form given the lack of documentation provided by Mr Robinson and his lack of cooperation with HMRC. Right to apply for permission to appeal

78. This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice. Release date: 19 th FEBRUARY 2026