Sentinel Fire and Security Systems Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 550 (TC)
Pipsquid Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
19 June 2024
[2024] UKFTT 546 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A restaurant tried to get back money from the government's Covid-19 job support scheme. They missed a paperwork deadline, and the court said they had to pay it back, because the rules were clear. The court also said it can't consider other reasons why this might be unfair.
Key Facts
- •Pipsquid Ltd appealed HMRC's clawback of Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) payments.
- •The dispute centered on whether the company met the scheme's conditions, specifically regarding Real Time Information (RTI) submissions for four employees.
- •The first RTI returns for these employees were submitted after the 19th March 2020 deadline.
- •Pipsquid Ltd argued that circumstances (director's daughter's illness and HMRC's alleged unclear guidance) should excuse the late submissions.
- •HMRC argued that the statutory conditions were not met, and public law arguments were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Legal Principles
CJRS eligibility requires RTI submissions on or before 28 February or 19 March 2020 for relevant employees.
Coronavirus Act 2020 Functions of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme) Direction (First Direction), paragraph 5(a)(i) and paragraph 13.1
The First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) lacks jurisdiction to consider public law arguments, such as fairness or legitimate expectation, regarding CJRS payments.
HMRC v Hok Ltd [2012] UKUT 363 (TCC); Abdul Noor v HMRC; Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme v HMRC
The Tribunal's jurisdiction is purely statutory, defined by the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 and relevant taxing statutes.
Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007; Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA), section 50(6)
Wrongly paid CJRS support payments are recovered through income tax charges (Finance Act 2020, Schedule 16, paragraphs 8 and 9).
Finance Act 2020, Schedule 16, paragraphs 8 and 9
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed regarding £39,785.74 of CJRS payments made under the First Direction.
Pipsquid Ltd failed to meet the statutory conditions for CJRS payments due to late RTI submissions. The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the appellant's public law arguments.
Assessment reduced by £5,575.81 to £39,785.74.
HMRC conceded that £5,575.81 of claims (under the Fifth Direction) met the revised conditions, due to RTI submissions falling within the permitted timeframe. The Tribunal exercised its powers under TMA 50(6) to reduce the assessment.
Similar Cases
Digital Buying Partners Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 399 (TC)
Top-Notch Accountants Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 473 (TC)
Luca Delivery Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 278 (TC)
Oral Healthcare Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 357 (TC)