Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Thomas Merlin Ash v The Commissioners for HMRC

[2023] UKFTT 272 (TC)
Mr. Ash got money he wasn't supposed to from the government's self-employment support scheme. The government (HMRC) wanted the money back. Even though the government's instructions were a bit confusing, the court said the government could get the money back because the rules allow that.

Key Facts

  • Thomas Merlin Ash appealed an HMRC assessment for £14,070 relating to SEISS grants received.
  • HMRC accepted Mr. Ash's error was innocent.
  • Mr. Ash was ineligible for SEISS as he was not self-employed at the relevant time.
  • Mr. Ash argued he had a legitimate expectation to receive the grants due to HMRC's invitation to apply.
  • HMRC's email and online system indicated Mr. Ash's eligibility based on his previous tax returns, which showed self-employment before he incorporated his business.
  • Mr. Ash's claims were made before he and his co-director began making CJRS claims through their company, Ysgydion Ltd.
  • HMRC's assessment was based on paragraph 9 of Schedule 16 to the Finance Act 2020.
  • An independent review upheld HMRC's assessment.

Legal Principles

HMRC's power to recover SEISS payments made to ineligible individuals.

Finance Act 2020, Schedule 16, paragraphs 8 and 9

First-tier Tribunal (FTT) jurisdiction in SEISS appeals.

Taxes Management Act 1970, section 50; Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007; Case law: Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme v HMRC [2015] EWCA Civ 713; HMRC v Noor [2013] UKUT 071 (TCC); HMRC v Hok [2012] UKUT 363

Eligibility criteria for SEISS grants.

Coronavirus Act 2020, sections 71 and 76; Coronavirus Act 2020 Functions of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Self-Employment Income Support Scheme) Direction (Direction 1); Coronavirus Act 2020 Functions of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Self-Employment Income Support Scheme Extension) Direction (Direction 2)

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

The FTT found that HMRC validly raised the assessment in the correct amount and within the statutory timeframe. The FTT lacks jurisdiction to consider Mr. Ash's argument based on legitimate expectation.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.