Sofia Lorenzo v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 588 (TC)
Ali Sadiq Jaafar v The Commissioners for HMRC
22 August 2024
[2024] UKFTT 789 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A minicab driver claimed government pandemic support money, but the tax court said he didn't qualify. He'd stopped being self-employed before the pandemic and the evidence he provided to show he hadn't wasn't convincing. The court said he had to prove he was eligible, and he didn't. He had to pay back the money.
Key Facts
- •Ali Sadiq Jaafar appealed an HMRC assessment for £7,136 related to three Coronavirus Support Payments (SEISS) claims.
- •Jaafar was a self-employed minicab driver who incorporated Fly Services Limited in September 2018.
- •He claimed SEISS payments in June 2020, September 2020, and December 2020.
- •HMRC argued Jaafar wasn't entitled to the payments because he had ceased self-employment before the pandemic.
- •Jaafar's agent initially told HMRC he ceased self-employment on September 30, 2019, then later made inconsistent statements.
- •Jaafar provided various documents (licences, MOT, insurance) as evidence of continued self-employment, but these were deemed insufficient by the Tribunal.
- •Jaafar's bank statements showed some payments, but lacked supporting documentation to confirm their nature.
- •Fly Services Limited received a pandemic bounce-back loan, contradicting Jaafar's claim of continued self-employment.
Legal Principles
Eligibility for SEISS payments requires carrying on a trade adversely affected by the pandemic and intending to continue the trade in the 2020/21 tax year.
Treasury Direction (April 30, 2020) and paragraph 9, Schedule 16, Finance Act 2020
The burden of proof lies on the appellant to demonstrate eligibility for the SEISS payments on the balance of probabilities.
Tribunal rules and common law principles
Being a company director doesn't automatically preclude self-employment, but evidence of continued self-employment is required.
Tribunal's interpretation of relevant legislation
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that Jaafar carried on a self-employment trade adversely affected by the pandemic and intended to continue it in 2020/21. His evidence was inconsistent and contradictory, and the available documentation did not support his claim.