Jama Academy Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 10 April 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 302 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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: high
Jama Academy Limited appealed HMRC assessments alleging overpayment of Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) claims for two employees. The Tribunal held the assessments were valid and within time, found the employees were variable-rate (not fixed monthly salary) and calculated "reference salary" for each claim period by taking the greater of a properly‑calculated pro‑rata average and the look‑back amount; it accepted HMRC's revised calculations and reduced the assessments to £8,863.48. No penalties were imposed.
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: high
Where employees are not fixed‑rate, reference salary under paragraph 7.2 of the First Direction must be determined separately for each claim period by taking the higher of (a) the appropriate pro‑rata average pay (calculated sensibly for irregular pay, including use of a daily average and accounting for months with no pay) and (b) the actual pay in the corresponding prior period. The assessing officer's opinion will be valid if based on an objectively reasonable application of that method.
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 a vague claim of "unforeseen circumstances" will not suffice for a very short‑notice hearing postponement; reasons and demonstration of prejudice are required. It also noted that allowing minor post‑filing amendments to a skeleton argument to correct calculation errors may be permissible where no prejudice to the other party arises.