TC09637 - [2025] UKFTT 01100 (TC)

City Blinds Limited (“the Appellant/CB”) appealed against a notice of assessment issued by the Respondents (“the Respondents/HMRC”), pursuant to Paragraph 9, Schedule 16, Finance Act 2020 (“FA 2020”) for the period 23 March 2020 to 31 March 2021 in an amount of £8,510.21 (“the pre ADR assessment”).

The pre ADR assessment charged Income Tax as a result of the Appellant claiming an amount of Coronavirus Support Payments (“Support payments”) under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“CJRS”) in relation to twenty employees which HMRC say it was not entitled because the Appellant failed to calculate the claims in line with paragraphs 5, 7 and 8 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 Functions of HM Revenue and Customs (Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme) Direction dated 15 April 2020 (“the Direction”) made in exercise of sections 71 and 76 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (“the Coronavirus Act”).

The appeal was ‘late’ but HMRC had no objections to the appeal proceeding and the Tribunal (“the tribunal/we/our”) allowed the appeal to proceed.

The appeal entered into Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) and following a meeting on 16 April 2024, the Respondents updated their view to confirm that the employees’ status was as fixed rate employees and so reviewed their calculations on that basis resulting in an adjusted assessment (“the post ADR assessment”) which was the subject of the appeal, and in an amount of £12,073.51.

The Appellant does not agree with the pre and post ADR assessments as it says the assessments do not reflect 80% of the relevant employee’s wages nor does it agree with HMRC’s assertion that an underpayment in one period cannot be offset against an overpayment in another period.

We had before us a bundle of documents comprising of 1028 pages and which included a witness statement by the Respondents’ Officer Scott Cann (“SC”), a supplementary bundle of documents containing case law of 99 pages and a skeleton argument for the Respondents dated 6 August 2025. Submitted 24 hours prior to the hearing, we were sent a brief statement of agreed facts and issues, a list of documents and a ‘Statement of Case for the Appellant’, which included schedules of what it considers to be the correct calculations of the Support payments which in the digital version comprised of 33 pages.

We heard evidence from SC who was a credible witness and who was examined on his witness statement and gave further detail on how he had made the calculations underpinning the assessments