Dapetz Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 12 September 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1096 (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
Dapetz Limited appealed three income tax assessments issued by HMRC for overclaimed Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme payments; the First-tier Tribunal found HMRC's revised calculations were correct, reduced the assessed total to £177,401.27 under its TMA powers, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal held the company's original CJRS claims were incorrect because reference salaries must be determined from RTI data on or before the relevant CJRS day and the assessments were competent and timely. The Tribunal also ruled it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's wider non-statutory or equitable complaints about HMRC conduct.
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
The binding ratio identified is that, for fixed-rate employees, the reference salary for CJRS claims is determined by the latest salary period shown on an RTI return on or before the relevant CJRS day (19 March 2020 in this case); applying that method, HMRC’s revised calculations of qualifying furlough pay were correct. Also, the First-tier Tribunal’s statutory remit does not extend to remedies for non-statutory complaints against HMRC (such matters lie to judicial review or HMRC complaint procedures).
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 expressed that sympathetic factual circumstances (such as innocent mistake or pandemic hardship), administrative delays, caseworker changes, or retrospective checking systems do not displace the correct statutory application of the Coronavirus Direction nor broaden the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to set aside properly made assessments.