Shane Ellis v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 161 (TC)
Sofia Lorenzo v The Commissioners for HMRC
4 July 2024
[2024] UKFTT 588 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone got government support money meant for self-employed people, even though they were employed. They claimed they should have got a different type of support, but the judge said their company didn't meet the rules for that support. They didn't stop working completely, and so lost the appeal.
Key Facts
- •Sofia Lorenzo (Appellant) received Self-Employed Income Support Scheme (SEISS) payments while employed by her company, Babe Aesthetics Limited.
- •She accepted she wasn't entitled to SEISS but appealed the HMRC assessment, arguing she should have received Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) payments instead.
- •The appeal hinged on whether Babe would have qualified for CJRS payments if a claim had been made.
- •The Appellant's understanding of her employment status was a key factor in the case.
- •The Tribunal examined the criteria for CJRS eligibility under various Treasury Directions.
Legal Principles
Jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) in appeals against assessments under Paragraph 9 Schedule 16 Finance Act 2020.
Section 50 Taxes Management Act 1970 and Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
Burden of proof lies on the Appellant to demonstrate overcharging by the assessment, on the balance of probabilities.
Agreed by parties
Interpretation of CJRS requirements as set out in the Coronavirus Act 2020 and Treasury Directions (First, Third, and Fifth).
Coronavirus Act 2020, Section 76, 78; Treasury Directions (First, Third, Fifth)
Presumption of regularity: The Tribunal may infer that the Appellant would have acted in the best interests of the company and complied with the law.
CHF Pip! Plc v HMRC [2021] UKFTT 383 (TC)
Definition of 'work' under CJRS in relation to a director's activities.
Glo-ball Group Ltd v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 00435 (TC)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Appellant's company, Babe, did not meet the requirements for CJRS payments because it did not incur qualifying costs and the Appellant did not cease all work for the required period. The Appellant's mistaken belief that she was self-employed was not a sufficient basis to overturn the assessment.