The Commissioners for HMRC v Healthspan Limited

[2026] UKUT 194 (TCC)

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) | 18 May 2026 | England and Wales

The Upper Tribunal distinguished evidence which might be helpful from evidence reasonably required to resolve the proceedings, permitting only a tightly defined part of the proposed nutritional evidence.

Article published: 30 July 2026

Before asking whether an expert report will withstand cross-examination, there is an earlier question: is this evidence reasonably required at all? HMRC v Healthspan shows why that question needs a precise answer.

The dispute concerned the VAT treatment of products and proposed nutritional expert evidence. The Upper Tribunal allowed evidence about the products’ nutritional composition and significance, within defined limits, but refused the broader proposed topics concerning the scientific understanding of food and the modern diet.

This full content of this article is available to TAE members.

Log in Become a TAE Member

Articles reflect the law and practice at the time of original publication, except where a dated update is shown. Subsequent developments may affect their relevance or accuracy. They are provided for general information and do not constitute legal or professional advice. Obtain appropriate advice on your particular circumstances. Full disclaimer.

← Browse all cases

Contact Us