England and Wales first · decided records only
A forkable case library for asking what a public body could lawfully do, what a court actually found, which remedy followed, and whether any money was truly recovered—or merely affected.
The honest boundary
TaxSorted does not take a case, predict a win, sell a lead, rank a lawyer, contact a claimant or share in damages. The first release has no intake and no private uploads. A qualified professional makes any case-specific assessment in a confidential matter system.
This is public legal research, not legal advice. Deadlines, standing, alternative remedies, costs and the legal basis for any money claim need qualified review on the facts.
One framework for every admitted case
Read a decided tax dispute as identity, route, issues, facts, rules, arguments, evidence, reasons, holding, remedies and transfer limits without inventing missing material.
Each dimension is marked mapped, partial, not mapped or not applicable. A gap is not filled from intuition.
Which decision, jurisdiction, tax setting, parties and public power are in view?
Which route brought the dispute here, what stage was decided and which routes stayed separate?
Which legal questions had to be answered, and which questions were outside the decision?
Which facts mattered to the result, which were disputed and which remain unknown?
Which legislation, precedent and procedural rules governed the issue, with what authority?
What did each party ask the court to accept, and which arguments were accepted, rejected or not mapped?
Who had to establish what, to which standard, using which evidence?
Which stated public reasons were outcome-determinative within an issue or formed an independently sufficient branch supporting the disposition?
Which reasons supported the route, which were rejected and which only mark a boundary?
What did the court formally decide, and how was the appeal or application disposed of?
Which remedy followed, what money was affected, and what was not awarded, recovered or quantified?
What happened later, which facts limit transfer, and what change could alter the result in another case?
A decisive label means outcome-determinative within the issue being mapped or part of an independently sufficient branch supporting the disposition. It does not mean every decisive branch was globally necessary once another sufficient branch existed. All labels describe concise public judicial reasoning, not hidden model reasoning.
A challenge is a difficulty that materially changes how the decided case should be read. It is not a difficulty score or outcome prediction.
Choose the lawful route first
Appeal, judicial review, a rights claim, a separate money cause and a complaint have different powers and clocks. They must not be folded into one giant “sue” button.
Ask the body to review a decision or ask the specialist tribunal or court to change it, where the governing statute creates that route.
Money: A refund, liability reduction or award exists only where the particular tax or statutory scheme permits it.
Review the lawfulness of an enactment or a decision, action or failure in a public function, with permission. Orders can include quashing, prohibiting and mandatory relief, declarations and injunctions.
Money: Damages, restitution or recovery of a sum may be joined where independently available, but cannot be the only judicial-review remedy.
A person who is, or would be, a victim of an unlawful public-authority act may bring proceedings or rely on Convention rights in existing proceedings.
Money: Damages are discretionary and may be awarded only where necessary for just satisfaction after considering the other relief available.
Seek compensation or repayment only where a statute, tort, contract, restitutionary rule or other cause of action supplies all required elements.
Money: Public-law unlawfulness alone is not a damages calculation. Duty or statutory basis, breach, payment or loss, causation, limitation and defences need proof.
Seek service correction, explanation, apology, reconsideration or a recommendation through the body's published complaint route and any applicable ombudsman.
Money: This is not a substitute for a court or tribunal damages claim; redress powers depend on the scheme.
Potential gain, with the costume removed
Any later claimant-specific range must show public-law relief separately from money, include £0 and a negative net scenario, state every assumption and deduction, and be signed and dated by an authorised professional. The platform does not calculate it.
Eight gates, independent stops
Which exact decision, action or failure to act is being challenged?
Which statute, rule or public-law duty gave the body power, and what exact condition or limit may not have been met?
What supports the proposed ground, and what official material or contrary evidence weakens it?
Is there a statutory appeal, review, complaint or ombudsman route that must or should be used instead?
When did the ground arise and which territory and procedure set the deadline?
What order could actually repair the problem: quashing, prohibiting, mandatory, declaration, injunction, reconsideration, restitution or a separately grounded damages claim?
Is the figure a payment already made, a demand paused or removed, loss alleged, damages legally available, interest, costs, or only a hypothetical exposure?
Has an authorised professional independently checked competence, current register status, conflicts, instructions, consent, evidence, funding and adverse-cost risk?
First admitted deep case
What happens when HMRC uses a penalty-backed notice that pressures a taxpayer to abandon an appeal, but has not reached the level of certainty Parliament required?
The case shows that a regulator can lose on the lawfulness of a coercive procedural notice even when the taxpayer later loses the underlying tax dispute. A remedy and a tax saving are different things.
Open the evidence file →Money status
£8.786m demand affected; no damages award identified
Not a payout. Net recovery is not established and the underlying tax appeal later failed.
Decentralised by custody, not by hype
Each admitted case can be downloaded as a complete source-resolving JSON packet and mirrored without an account.
A claimant or instructed professional keeps the private supplement locally or in their own approved matter system; TaxSorted never needs a copy.
The embedded SHA-256 digest identifies the canonical substantive packet fields before integrity metadata and route links are added. The X-Checksum-SHA256 response header verifies the exact delivered response bytes. Neither proves that a claim is true, a signer is qualified, or a source remains current.
For qualified professionals
Download a blank assessment packet, verify the public sources, then work inside your own approved matter system. There is no submission endpoint and no public bid.
A live lead or professional-pickup service remains closed until there is a lawful confidential intake, controller and retention policy, professional-regulatory review, conflicts process, safeguarding route, audit trail and tested emergency stop.
For agents and careful training work
The interpretation contract, agent guide, case interpretations, reasoning graph and bounded training examples are public. The approval matches this exact release. Every route is read-only.
Agent reading order
The guide names the safe read order, source checks and the private-data boundary.
Open agent guide JSON ↗Interpretation contract
The framework defines dimensions, challenge states and what decisive reasoning means.
Open framework JSON ↗Training projection
Deterministic NDJSON uses approved public packets plus clearly marked TaxSorted-derived labels, keeps source pointers, and closes again if its exact-release approval no longer matches.
Download public examples ↗One admitted deep case is not a sufficient or representative training corpus. These approved records are format examples and evaluation seeds, not material for outcome prediction.
Runtime tax-expert requests, private professional assessments and user data are outside this export and are not used for training by this service.
Corpus 2026-07-24.1, reviewed 2026-07-24. Public factual corrections require a GitHub account. Never post private case material there.