Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2024-000098 - [2025] UKUT 00247 (TCC)

Fecha: 21-May-2025

Case law

Case law

22.

Although its decision is in no way binding upon us, the FTT has previously considered the eligibility criteria and whether SEISS might be available to persons trading as limited companies, including as their directors or employees, rather than as self-employed individuals or sole traders.

23.

In the case of Joshua Taylor v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 304 (TC), Judge Anne Scott and Tribunal Member Patricia Gordon determined that individuals providing services through limited companies were not eligible for SEISS as they were not self-employed nor trading as individuals. The FTT decided that it was the company that was trading and not the individual. The judge stated at [52]-[55]:

52.

Shortly put, although the appellant has always been an individual, the appellant certainly did not carry on the trade as an individual after 31 July 2018. Undoubtedly, at all relevant times, he was a fitness coach but that trade was conducted until 31 July 2018 by him as a sole trader and thereafter by his company. Those are two completely separate and different legal persons. As a sole trader he paid income tax. The company pays corporation tax. PAYE is deducted from the appellant's earnings from the company but it is not his trade. It is his employment.

53.

Furthermore "trade" is defined for the purposes of SEISS as I have recorded in paragraph 36 above. In summary it is defined by reference to income tax legislation.

54.

We disagree fundamentally with Dr Milton's assertion that the legislation does not preclude the validity of a claim where the trade is carried on by a limited company. It does.

55.

Bluntly, the clue is in the name, the Support Payment is only available to the self-employed. The appellant has not been self-employed since 31 July 2018.