Noel Spencer v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 28 July 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 660 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: medium

This appeal concerned whether Mr Spencer qualified for two SEISS grants; HMRC assessed recovery of £2,563. The Tribunal found he had ceased self-employment on 5 April 2019, did not trade in 2019–20, and therefore failed the continuity and intention criteria in paragraph 4(2) of the SEISS Schedule. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment upheld.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium

The Tribunal relied on documentary evidence, including Mr Spencer’s 2018–19 self‑assessment return recording cessation on 5 April 2019, to infer that he had ceased self‑employment for the subsequent tax year; failure to show continuous trading across the required tax years defeated eligibility under the SEISS qualifying‑person criteria in paragraph 4(2).

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The Tribunal indicated that evidence of directors’ remuneration from a community interest company is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that a director was trading as self‑employed for SEISS purposes, and expressed sympathy for the appellant’s misunderstanding while noting limited jurisdiction to address broader fairness or alternative scheme eligibility.

Warning

- The chunk contains substantial duplicated material and repeated paragraphs, which may make extraction cumbersome. The provided notes contain duplicated material and repeated paragraphs; they may be noisy though the main findings appear consistent.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML