Sinter Site Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 995 (TC)
Bandstream Media and Corporate Communications Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
22 December 2023
[2024] UKFTT 49 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company claimed extra government money (CJRS) for its director's salary, saying a rule allowed them to increase his pay. The judge disagreed, saying the rule only applied if the initial salary was too low. The judge also said they couldn't consider a debate in parliament when deciding on the law.
Key Facts
- •Bandstream Media appealed HMRC assessments for incorrectly claimed CJRS support payments for director Graham Smith.
- •Smith's pre-March 19, 2020 salary was £600/month, supplemented by £2,500/month in dividends.
- •Post-March 19, 2020, salary increased to £2,500/month, with no dividends.
- •HMRC argued claims should have been based on the £600 pre-March 19, 2020 salary.
- •The appellant argued that paragraph 7.12 of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme allowed for additional payments post-March 19, 2020, to be included in the CJRS claim.
- •The appellant cited a parliamentary debate suggesting that the scheme should accommodate directors previously remunerated via dividends.
- •HMRC issued discovery assessments under paragraph 9 of Schedule 16, Finance Act 2020.
Legal Principles
CJRS support payments are based on earnings shown in RTI returns on or before a relevant CJRS day (March 19, 2020).
Coronavirus Direction, paragraph 5
Paragraph 7.12 of the Coronavirus Direction allows for additional payments post-March 19, 2020 only if the original payment is less than 80% of the amount required by paragraph 7.1(b)(ii).
Coronavirus Direction, paragraphs 7.1, 7.12
HMRC has the power to make assessments under paragraph 9 of Schedule 16, Finance Act 2020 for incorrectly claimed CJRS support payments.
Finance Act 2020, Schedule 16, paragraph 9
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review HMRC's conduct under their Charter.
Finance Act 2009 (implied)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found that paragraph 7.12 did not allow the appellant to claim support payments based on the increased salary post-March 19, 2020, as the original payment met the requirements of paragraph 7.1(b)(ii). The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument based on the parliamentary debate, stating that the Tribunal must interpret the legislation based on the words used, not external influences.