TC09606 - [2025] UKFTT 00958 (TC)

Fecha: 07-May-2025

parties arguments

parties arguments

Appellant’s arguments

27.

Mr Tann submitted that the claims made under CJRS were correct and that therefore no overclaims were made and no income tax assessments can be raised.

28.

This was on the basis of a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 20 March 2020 when CJRS was announced. This speech included the following statements:

“Government grants will cover 80% of the salary of retained workers up to a total of £2,500 a month – that’s above the median income.
And, of course, employers can top up salaries further if they choose to.
That means workers in any part of the UK can retain their job, even if their employer cannot afford to pay them, and be paid at least 80% of their salary.”

29.

Mr Tann submits that this speech showed that the Chancellor intended that employers could “top up” their employees’ salaries in order to be able to make higher claims under the CJRS for grants.

30.

He further submitted that this was then made possible through the mechanism in paragraph 7.12 of the first CJRS direction:

(1)

The “original payment” is whatever you pay the staff between 1 March and 19 March;

(2)

The lower amount was paid to them between 7 March and 4 April and this amount was less than “the amount required by paragraph 7.1(b)(ii)”;

(3)

The higher amount was paid from 11 April, as is apparent from the PAYE submissions made to HMRC and this was the topped-up amount.

31.

Mr Tann referred to the decision in Bandstream Media and Corporate Communications Limited v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 00011, where the judge referred to paragraph 7.12 needing to be used for correcting a claim and that it cannot be used for “topping up”. He submits that this conclusion was wrong.

32.

Mr Tann submits that both HMRC and he agree that paragraph 7.12 can be used for “topping up”.