TC09583 - [2025] UKFTT 00865 (TC)

Having so concluded, we have considered our jurisdiction. Paragraph 1 to Schedule 10 FA 17 does not provide for an appeal against an assessment; however, subparagraph (a) provides for an appeal as to “whether or not a person is liable to pay an amount of [SDIL]” and (f) provides for an appeal in respect of “the amount of [SDIL] payable by a person”. HMRC appeared to accept that the Appellant’s appeal, fell within either (a) or (f). In our view (a) covers decisions, including assessments, determining what SDIL is due consequent upon the occurrence of chargeable event and before consideration of credits. We thereby consistently interpret liable to pay as due and vice versa (a position we understood to be agreed between the parties). As there is no dispute as to the SDIL which became chargeable in each accounting period and thereby no dispute as to the Appellant’s liability to pay an amount of SDIL we do not consider our jurisdiction to arise under paragraph 1(a).

By similar logic, i.e. that the Assessments determine the amount of SDIL which is payable by the Appellant (i.e. the total amount shown on the returns as corrected by the Appellant or by way of the Assessments) the decision under appeal falls within the terms of paragraph 1(f). By virtue of paragraph 13 our jurisdiction is to either affirm the decision or substitute another decision that HMRC had the power to make.

We therefore affirm the Assessments for accounting periods ended 31/12/2018, 31/03/2019, 31/03/2021 and 31/12/2021. We substitute the amount identified in the table above in the column the “total amount payable for the accounting period” for periods 30/09/2019, 31/12/2019, 31/03/2020 and 31/12/20. Because there is no freestanding power to withdraw credit we consider that the amount in the table is the only figure that the terms of the legislation provide as a substitute.

For completeness, we reject the Appellant’s alternative argument that the time limit for the Assessments should restrict HMRC to assessing only for periods within a 2-year period prior to the making of the assessment in question. The provisions of paragraph 7 Schedule 8 FA 17 are clear. Alternative time limits apply for recovery assessments under paragraph 12 Schedule 8 FA 17 where a person has made a claim for repayment of SDIL which was not due, and it is subsequently established that the claimant was not entitled to the repayment. There is no statutory basis for an argument that a time limit applying to one type of assessment should apply to another. Any argument that Parliament should have aligned the time limits is not a matter within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

We therefore uphold the Assessments to the extent set out above.

This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice.