TC09605 - [2025] UKFTT 00957 (TC)

As no RTI submissions were made in respect of the Employees during the qualifying period, they were not “eligible employees” for the purposes of the CJRS claims and the Appellant was not, therefore, entitled to claim Support Payments for them.

HMRC were therefore entitled to raise the assessments under paragraph 9 and they were valid, in time, assessments.

We accept that the Appellant acted in good faith and provided all the necessary information to its agent which failed to make the submissions it should have done. We also note that the Appellant actively tried to ensure that the agent had done what it was supposed to do and was constantly put off with excuses and promises that the documents would be sent.

Unfortunately, the legislation is rigid and prescriptive and there is no room for HMRC or the Tribunal to exercise discretion in relation to the assessments. This remains the case even where the failure to submit the RTI returns was not the employer’s fault, and the employer had taken reasonable care to ensure they were submitted.

Similar conclusions have been reached in other Tribunal cases including Raystra Healthcare Limited v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 496 (TC) and Luca Delivery Limited v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 00278 (TC). Luca also concerned failures by a third-party payroll contractor, in that case, called SJPR. The Tribunal said, at [60]:

“… the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to allow the appeal because:

(1)

Ms Sartor [an employee] was not included in an RTI return made by a “relevant CJRS day” namely 28 February or 19 March 2020, so there was no entitlement to CJRS.

(2)

The Tribunal only has the jurisdiction to allow an appeal where the appellant was entitled to CJRS. We cannot allow an appeal where the appellant was not so entitled, even where this was caused by the oversight of a third party, here SJPR.

(3)

No correction of the RTI filings had been made, and even had there been such a correction, it would not have changed the position, ….

(4)

Although Luca may have a claim against SJPR in relation to a failure to include Ms Sartor on the RTI returns from the date her employment began, this Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to decide claims of that nature, and in particular cannot direct that HMRC recover the overpaid CJRS from SJPR. Moreover, our findings of fact have been made on the basis of the evidence provided for this hearing, and other facts may be relevant in the context of a civil claim against SJPR.”

The comments about the Tribunal’s jurisdiction apply equally in the present case.