When HMRC asks for additional information about a taxpayer’s position, it is often wise to push back rather than immediately comply. According to Neil Tipping, lead tax enquiry consultant at Croner‑i, such requests can sometimes signal an over‑reach, as illustrated by the recent BGC salaried member case.
Applicants to the First‑tier Tribunal (FTT) have increasingly found themselves facing HMRC demands for “further and better particulars” before HMRC has even filed its own statement of case. For many, this has felt less like a genuine need for clarity and more like a stalling tactic—sometimes even a way to cover gaps where HMRC has not properly explained its assessment decisions.
A recent decision from Judge Redston on 9 June in BGC Services Holdings LLP [2025] UKFTT 700 (TC) brought this issue into sharp focus. HMRC had previously been denied a direction to compel the taxpayer to supply more details. In turn, BGC successfully sought its own direction requiring HMRC to give a full explanation for issuing significant determinations.
The FTT’s review, conducted on paper, dealt with HMRC’s request to escalate the matter to the Upper Tribunal, arguing that Judge Redston’s findings were wrong in fact and law. However, Judge Redston’s decision clearly exposed the shortcomings in HMRC’s approach.
In the BGC case, the taxpayer had provided thousands of pages of evidence, much of it repeatedly, as the file passed through six different HMRC officers. Despite this, HMRC claimed the responses were inadequate. Judge Redston disagreed, noting that HMRC’s decision letter cited no supporting legislation, case law, or internal guidance. Because HMRC had not properly justified its assessment, the taxpayer’s appeal had to be framed in broad terms.
Judge Redston wrote:
“HMRC are required to give reasons for their decisions as a matter of public law. It is not enough for HMRC to say that, once an assessment is made, the burden lies with the appellant to provide detailed particulars. In plain terms, HMRC have painted with broad strokes and are now asking the tribunal to help them fill in the detail. Instead, HMRC must set out its own position in line with Rule 25(2)(b).”
A Clear Message for Future Cases
This ruling draws an important line in the sand. HMRC must do its own work properly before issuing an assessment. Taxpayers have only 30 days to appeal, but they cannot give detailed grounds for appeal if HMRC has failed to provide detailed reasons in the first place.
If HMRC has genuinely provided a thorough explanation, then it may be reasonable for them to request specific grounds from the taxpayer. But in many recent cases, HMRC has issued assessments without fully considering the evidence and then tried to push taxpayers to fill in the gaps so that HMRC’s solicitors can later craft a statement of case.
Judge Redston’s judgment should make HMRC think twice about this practice.
The takeaway:
If you are moving toward an FTT hearing, it is often sensible to resist requests for “further and better particulars”—especially where you have already complied fully with your duty to provide information during the enquiry process.
