Digital Buying Partners Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 399 (TC)
Luca Delivery Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
8 March 2023
[2023] UKFTT 278 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company mistakenly didn't include an employee on their payroll paperwork in time to get government coronavirus job support money. The court said the rules are strict and the company couldn't get the money back, even though it wasn't their fault. They can try to get their money back from their accountant though.
Key Facts
- •Luca Delivery Limited (Luca) claimed CJRS payments for its director and an employee, Ms Sartor.
- •Ms Sartor was not included in Luca's RTI returns until June 2020, despite being employed since December 2019.
- •HMRC issued assessments to recover CJRS payments made for Ms Sartor (£4,789.35).
- •The omission was due to an oversight by Luca's payroll provider, SJPR Accountants Ltd.
- •Luca's appeal was filed late.
Legal Principles
CJRS payments required employee inclusion in RTI return by 28 February 2020 or 19 March 2020.
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) First Direction, Schedule, paragraph 5(a)(i) and paragraph 13.1
Retrospective correction of RTI return does not satisfy CJRS requirements.
Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) (Amendment) Regulations 2003, Reg 67E; CJRS First Direction
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to relax strict legislative requirements of CJRS.
None explicitly stated, but implied throughout the decision.
Tribunal can grant permission for late appeal considering factors like delay length, reasons, and HMRC's objection.
Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 0178 (TCC)
HMRC can assess income tax for overpaid CJRS payments.
Finance Act 2020, Schedule 16, paragraphs 8 and 9
Outcomes
Appeal refused.
Ms Sartor was not included in an RTI return by the relevant CJRS deadline, and retrospective correction wouldn't change eligibility.
Assessments confirmed.
HMRC assessments were valid as Luca was not entitled to the CJRS payments for Ms Sartor.
Permission granted for late appeal.
The delay was not considered serious, the reasons were explained, and HMRC did not object.
Similar Cases
Oral Healthcare Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 357 (TC)
Sentinel Fire and Security Systems Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 550 (TC)
Top-Notch Accountants Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 473 (TC)
Pipsquid Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 546 (TC)