Bandstream Media and Corporate Communications Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 22 December 2023

Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 11 (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

Bandstream appealed HMRC assessments denying CJRS claims made for an employee (Mr Smith) whose RTI showed taxable pay of £600/month up to 31 March 2020 but who was paid £2,500/month thereafter. The Tribunal held paragraph 7.12 of the Coronavirus Direction did not permit using the later increased salary to inflate CJRS claims; the reference salary is fixed by the RTI submission on or before the CJRS reference day (19 March 2020). The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's assessments were upheld as adjusted.

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

For CJRS purposes the employee's reference salary is fixed by the latest RTI information on or before the relevant CJRS day (19 March 2020); paragraph 7.12 only applies where an original payment was less than the required amount and a subsequent payment tops up that original obligation to meet the scheme threshold, and does not permit employers to rely on post‑scheme increases in pay to raise claim amounts.

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 noted that parliamentary debates or ministerial statements cannot displace clear statutory language and are not generally admissible to alter the provision's meaning. It also recorded that HMRC had misconstrued references to dividends in correspondence, observing the appellant's attempt to convert dividend payments into salary rather than to claim based on dividends.

Warning

- The chunk contains substantial repetition of the same passages, which may make it appear noisy. Notes include repetition and may be somewhat noisy.