TC09633 - [2025] UKFTT 01096 (TC)

The appeal concerned three assessments (the “Assessments”) to income tax made in respect of an amount of Coronavirus Support Payments (“CV Support Payments”) paid to the Appellant under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“CJRS”). The Assessments were in respect of tax years 2020-21 and 2021-2 in the amounts of £112,286.44, £13,229.81 and £56,005.68, being a total amount of £181,591.56.

The central question before us was whether the Appellant had correctly calculated its claim for CV Support Payments in accordance with the Coronavirus Act 2020 and regulations made under that Act (in particular paragraph 7 of the First Coronavirus Direction (the “Coronavirus Direction")). We determined that the Appellant had not correctly calculated their claim in accordance with the Coronavirus Direction and that HMRC were correct to make the Assessments.

Following a review of the Assessments, HMRC had invited the Tribunal to adjust the Assessments to a total of £177,401.27. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided to use our powers under section 50(6) Taxes Management Act 1970 (“TMA”) to reduce the Assessments for tax year 2020-21 to £112,269.78 and £12,987.45 and for tax year 2021-22 to £52,144.04, being a total or £177,401.27.

We dismissed the Appellant's appeal in respect of the Assessments.

We were sympathetic to the Appellant in that it had made claims for CV Support Payments on the understanding the claims were in line with the applicable rules and had accounted to their furloughed employees for the amounts received. Now having to repay amounts meant the Appellant would lose out when it had not ultimately benefited from the payments. We considered that the Appellant had probably made an innocent mistake. However, our conclusion was that the claims were not made in accordance with the rules and that we did not have jurisdiction to consider the arguments raised by the Appellant (such as issues of legitimate expectation and compliance by HMRC with the HMRC Charter).

We accepted that the efforts made by the Appellant in the pandemic had contributed to the wellbeing of the United Kingdom and noted that the Appellant had said this had been commended by the King. However, that did not give us grounds to find in the Appellant’s favour in relation to this appeal.