Digital Buying Partners Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 399 (TC)
Sentinel Fire and Security Systems Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
26 June 2023
[2023] UKFTT 550 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company tried to get money back from the government's furlough scheme, but because they missed a paperwork deadline, the government got to keep the money. The judge said the rules were clear and they had to follow them, even if it seemed unfair.
Key Facts
- •Sentinel Fire and Security Systems Ltd. appealed an HMRC assessment for £17,777.81 related to a Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) clawback.
- •The appeal concerned support payments made for an employee, Mr. Boddice, whose RTI submission post-dated the March 19, 2020, eligibility deadline.
- •Mr. Boddice's employment started February 25, 2020, but his first RTI submission was on March 25, 2020.
- •HMRC's compliance check led to the assessment, which was challenged by the appellant.
- •The appellant argued that the late RTI submission was due to their payroll processing method and that they were within the 'spirit' of the scheme.
Legal Principles
CJRS eligibility required an RTI submission for the employee on or before March 19, 2020.
Coronavirus Act 2020, Section 76; The Coronavirus Act 2020 Functions of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme) Direction (First Direction), paragraph 5; PAYE Regulations, paragraph 67B; Schedule A1 to the PAYE Regulations.
The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) has no jurisdiction to consider arguments of fairness or reasonableness if the legislation is clear.
Carlick Contract Furniture Ltd v HMRC [2022] TC 02434; HMRC v HOK Ltd [2012] UKUT 363 (TCC)
The burden of proof is on HMRC to show the assessment is valid and on the appellant to demonstrate an overcharge.
Not explicitly stated as a specific legislation but implied throughout the judgement
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The appellant failed to meet the eligibility criteria of the CJRS due to the late RTI submission for Mr. Boddice. The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider arguments based on fairness or the 'spirit' of the scheme.