HMRC Closure Notice Mechanics for Landlord Enquiries (TMA 1970 s.28A)

Most landlord tax enquiries do not end at the obvious place. They drift. HMRC requests records, the taxpayer or accountant responds, HMRC requests more, time passes. Twelve months become eighteen. Eighteen become two years. The enquiry remains open and HMRC's investigative powers remain in force throughout. The legal mechanism for ending the drift is the closure notice under TMA 1970 section 28A, and the legal mechanism for forcing one when HMRC will not issue it voluntarily is the section 28A(4) tribunal-direction application.

This page walks five layers: the statutory closure-notice mechanic under section 28A; the partial-versus-final distinction; the section 28A(4) tribunal-direction lever; the 30-day appeal window under section 31A (not 60 days, contrary to a common misreading); and the interaction with HMRC alternative dispute resolution. It also covers the post-closure interaction with the section 29 discovery framework.

The statutory closure-notice mechanic

Section 28A applies where HMRC has opened an enquiry under section 9A. The enquiry is in force from the date the notice of enquiry is given until it is completed by the issue of a closure notice. There is no statutory maximum length on a section 9A enquiry. The closure notice is the only formal mechanism by which HMRC ends the enquiry.

Section 28A(1) requires that the closure notice state HMRC's conclusions. Section 28A(2) requires that the closure notice either:

• state that no amendment to the return is required, or
• make the amendments to the return that the officer considers are required to give effect to those conclusions.

Where the closure notice amends the return, the amendments are effective from the date of the closure notice. The return is treated as if it had been filed in its amended form, subject to the taxpayer's appeal rights.

Partial versus final closure notices

Section 28A allows HMRC to issue a closure notice that closes the enquiry on a specific matter while the enquiry continues on other matters. This is the partial closure notice. Each partial closure notice carries the full statutory effect on the matter to which it relates: the amendment (if any) is effective from the partial closure date, and the 30-day appeal window starts running.

A final closure notice ends the enquiry in full. Until a final closure notice has been issued, the section 9A enquiry remains open even where every other matter has been closed by partial notices.

The operational practical effect for landlords with portfolio enquiries: partial closure can crystallise the position on the rental-income limb while the capital-allowances limb continues to be debated. The landlord can appeal the rental-income limb (within 30 days) without disrupting the capital-allowances negotiation. This is the working pattern for portfolio enquiries that span multiple tax issues, only some of which are contentious.

The section 28A(4) tribunal-direction lever

Section 28A(4) is the operational mechanic for breaking the stall. The provision allows the taxpayer to apply to the First-tier Tribunal for a direction requiring HMRC to issue a closure notice within a specified period. The procedural threshold is set in section 28A(6): the tribunal must give the direction unless HMRC have reasonable grounds for not issuing the closure notice within that period.

Two structural points make section 28A(4) more powerful than landlords often realise. First, the burden is on HMRC to show reasonable grounds for not closing. Not on the taxpayer to show that closure is overdue. Second, the test is reasonable grounds, not exceptional circumstances. HMRC must be doing actual work, on actual outstanding matters, with reasonable diligence. Repeated requests for information already provided, long gaps between officer contact, and disproportionate scope creep are all factors that tribunals weigh against HMRC.

Tribunals have refused to give a direction where HMRC could demonstrate a clear forward plan with identified outstanding matters and a credible timeline. Tribunals have granted directions where HMRC could show only that "the enquiry is ongoing" without a substantive forward plan, where the enquiry has expanded scope multiple times without justification, or where HMRC has missed multiple internal review milestones.

Operationally, the section 28A(4) application is usually credible from around the 12-to-18-month mark for ordinary landlord enquiries, and earlier (around the 9-month mark) where the enquiry has clearly stalled. Tribunals expect HMRC to be given a reasonable period to work through complex matters, but not an indefinite one.

What the application looks like in practice

The application is fact-driven and document-driven. The strongest applications are accompanied by:

• A timeline of every HMRC information request, with dates and content.
• A timeline of every taxpayer response, with dates and content.
• Evidence of repeat requests for the same information.
• Evidence of unexplained gaps between HMRC interactions (60-plus days of inactivity is typically material).
• The date the enquiry was opened.
• The substantive position the enquiry has reached (or has failed to reach).

The tribunal looks for a pattern of HMRC inactivity or disproportionate requests rather than a single bad month. Build the pattern, present it cleanly, and the section 28A(4) application becomes a powerful lever for closure.

The 30-day appeal window under section 31A

Once a closure notice (partial or final) has been issued, the appeal window is 30 days from the date of the notice under TMA 1970 section 31A. This is one of the most commonly mis-cited provisions in landlord-facing commentary. The 30-day clock starts on the date of the closure notice, not on the date the landlord receives it (subject to limited postal-receipt arguments).

The notice of appeal is in writing to HMRC and must state the grounds of appeal. HMRC then has 30 days to offer a review or to refer the matter to the FTT directly. The internal HMRC review is conducted by an officer who was not involved in the original enquiry, and the review must reach a conclusion within 45 days (extendable by agreement). If the review upholds the closure notice, the taxpayer has a further 30 days to notify the appeal to the FTT.

Late appeals require an application under the framework set out in the reasonable-excuse and late-appeal framework. The framework is materially stricter than HMRC's pre-Martland practice, and landlords missing the 30-day window face a real risk that a late appeal will be refused regardless of the merits.

ADR alongside, not replacing, the FTT route

HMRC alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is available alongside the FTT route. ADR is a mediated negotiation conducted by a trained HMRC officer (who has not been involved in the underlying enquiry) and aimed at reaching a settled position on disputed facts or technical points. It is a useful adjunct to the appeal route where the dispute is fact-heavy and would benefit from structured facilitated discussion.

The single most important operational point on ADR: ADR engagement does not pause the 30-day appeal clock under section 31A. Landlords using ADR should lodge a protective notice of appeal in parallel to preserve their FTT rights. Missing the 30-day window because ADR was in progress is a recoverable error only if a Martland late-appeal application succeeds, and there is no guarantee.

The right operational sequence is: (1) closure notice received; (2) protective notice of appeal lodged within 30 days; (3) ADR engagement, if useful, runs in parallel; (4) if ADR resolves, the appeal is withdrawn; (5) if ADR fails, the appeal continues to the FTT.

Section 19A information notices and the open-enquiry information flow

While the enquiry is open, HMRC's information-gathering powers sit in TMA 1970 section 19A (formal information notices for documents and information reasonably required for the enquiry) and in HMRC's ordinary correspondence powers (informal information requests, which carry no statutory teeth but are the default in most enquiries).

The formal-versus-informal distinction matters for two reasons. First, only a formal section 19A notice carries the penalty exposure under Schedule 36 FA 2008 for non-compliance (which is the parallel information regime for SDLT and VAT, also widely used). Informal HMRC information requests are persuasive but not legally enforceable. Second, formal notices are appealable to the FTT on the ground that the document or information is not reasonably required; informal requests are not formally appealable but can be declined where they exceed the proportionate scope of the enquiry.

Operationally, landlords and their advisers should treat formal section 19A notices with full statutory rigour and treat informal requests with proportionate diligence. The right scope of response to an informal request is what the enquiry reasonably requires, not everything HMRC mentions in passing. Where the information requested is disproportionate to the enquiry scope or duplicates what has already been provided, declining the informal request and asking HMRC to issue a formal notice is a defensible response.

What the FTT tests on a closure-notice appeal

An appeal against the amendments made by a closure notice is heard by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (SI 2009/273). The tribunal tests the closure-notice amendments against the underlying tax law on the facts found by the tribunal. The burden of proof rests on the taxpayer to displace the HMRC amendment (subject to specific provisions, such as the deliberate-behaviour penalty bands, where the burden shifts to HMRC).

This default-burden-on-taxpayer rule is one of the structural reasons closure-notice appeals are not lightly entered into. The tribunal will require evidence on both the legal and factual position; the landlord cannot simply rely on the HMRC officer being wrong. In practice this means landlord appeals are strongest where the underlying records are complete, the technical position is well-documented, and the closure-notice amendment is identifiable as a single substantive error (rather than a generalised "we don't agree" position).

Categorisation of the appeal as a standard, basic, or complex case affects costs-shifting. Complex cases attract costs-shifting where one party acts unreasonably; standard and basic cases do not. For landlord-portfolio enquiries with substantial sums in dispute, complex categorisation is often the right ask. HMRC's Appeals Reviews and Tribunals Guidance at ARTG2000 onwards covers the categorisation and costs-shifting framework in detail.

Worked example: a section 28A(4) tribunal-direction application

Background. A higher-rate landlord with a 12-property portfolio receives a section 9A notice of enquiry in March 2025 covering the 2023/24 self-assessment return. The enquiry covers (i) the gross rental income reconciliation against lettings-agent statements, (ii) capital-vs-revenue treatment of approximately £80,000 of works expenditure, and (iii) section 24 finance-cost restriction figures.

Months 1-6. HMRC requests bank statements, lettings-agent statements, contractor invoices and mortgage statements. The landlord's accountant responds within 21 days each time.

Months 7-12. HMRC raises specific questions on three contractor invoices and asks for further detail on the section 24 calculation. The accountant responds.

Months 13-15. HMRC sends two further requests, both substantially overlapping with previously-provided information. The accountant raises the overlap; HMRC officer assigned to the case changes; new officer requests the same information again.

Months 16-18. No HMRC contact for 12 weeks. The landlord becomes increasingly concerned about the section 24 figures being held in suspense for a third tax year (the 2025/26 filing is approaching).

Month 19 (October 2026). The accountant lodges a section 28A(4) application to the FTT supported by: the 19-month timeline document; evidence of the three repeated information requests; the 12-week inactivity gap; and a substantive timeline showing that 90 per cent of the requested information was provided within the first nine months. The application asks the tribunal to direct HMRC to issue a closure notice within 60 days.

Tribunal hearing. HMRC argues that the enquiry is still active on the capital-vs-revenue limb. The tribunal reviews the evidence and finds that HMRC has been substantially inactive for the past four months and that the repeated information requests show that the enquiry has lost focus rather than progressed. The tribunal directs HMRC to issue a closure notice within 90 days.

Outcome. HMRC issues a closure notice in February 2027 amending the section 24 figures (£12,000 additional tax) and partially disallowing £15,000 of capital-vs-revenue expenditure (£6,000 additional tax). The total amendment is £18,000, against an enquiry that had been open 23 months. The landlord appeals the capital-vs-revenue limb (which the accountant assesses as defensible) and accepts the section 24 amendment.

The example is composite and anonymised, but the timing pattern and the FTT analytical approach are typical for landlord cases where section 28A(4) is the right tool. The single largest practical effect is unblocking the section 24 position so that the landlord can finalise 2025/26 and 2026/27 returns on a settled basis.

Post-closure interaction with section 29 discovery

Once a final closure notice has been issued, the section 9A enquiry is closed. HMRC's only route to revisit the position is via a discovery assessment under section 29, which is materially more restrictive than the open-enquiry framework.

To make a discovery assessment after the enquiry is closed, HMRC must show: (a) a discovery within section 29(1); (b) one of the unlock conditions in section 29(4) (careless or deliberate behaviour) or section 29(5) (competent-officer test) is met; and (c) the assessment is within the relevant time-limit bracket under section 34, 36 or 36A. The section 29(5) competent-officer test is the harder of the two unlocks where HMRC has previously enquired into the same position, because the information that was available to HMRC during the closed enquiry is information that an officer of ordinary diligence should have considered.

The practical effect: a final closure notice that the landlord accepts is a stronger procedural protection against future re-opening than a final closure notice that the landlord appeals. The latter leaves HMRC with the opportunity to revisit positions that come out of the appeal process; the former crystallises HMRC's position at the closure date.

How section 28A sits alongside the broader enquiry framework

The closure-notice framework under section 28A is one of three structural mechanics in the section 9A enquiry life cycle:

• Opening: section 9A notice of enquiry. Standard 12-month window from filing date (or from 31 January for early-filed returns).
• Information exchange: section 19A formal information notices, supplemented by informal information requests under HMRC's ordinary correspondence powers.
• Closing: section 28A closure notice, partial or final, with the section 28A(4) lever where HMRC will not close voluntarily.

The closure notice is where the substantive position crystallises and the appeal clock starts. The penalty regime under Schedule 24 FA 2007 applies to any amendments made by the closure notice; the discovery framework under section 29 applies to anything HMRC wants to revisit after final closure.

Where a landlord enquiry has been open for more than 12 months and the substantive position is settled or stuck, the closure-notice question is the single most important operational lever. The section 28A(4) application is the path of last resort but a real one, and the 30-day appeal window under section 31A is the timing discipline that must be maintained throughout.

One final operational point on closure-notice strategy. The form of the closure notice is the legal commitment HMRC makes on the substantive position. Once issued, HMRC cannot resile from the amendments stated in the notice except via withdrawal of the notice (which requires HMRC consent and is rare in practice) or via a successful taxpayer appeal that changes the amendment. A closure notice that contains an internal inconsistency, a calculation error, or a citation error is appealable on those grounds alone, and tribunals have struck down closure notices for clear drafting errors. Landlords receiving a closure notice should run the figures and the cited statutory provisions through a verification pass within the first seven days of receipt. The closure notice is not a draft; it is the document that defines the appeal.

If you have an open HMRC enquiry that has been running for more than a year, or you have received a closure notice and the 30-day appeal clock is running, the form at the foot of the page is the route to a structured response.