PM Consulting Nistorescu Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 19 October 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1452 (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
This appeal concerned HMRC assessments recovering Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) payments claimed by PM Consulting Nistorescu Ltd for its sole director/employee. The Tribunal preferred the Company's original timesheets, found on the balance of probabilities that the director did not cease all work for a consecutive 21-day period in April–June 2020 and so those early claims failed, accepted HMRC's reduced calculations for later periods, varied the 2023 assessments to £26,553.65 and reduced the 2024 assessments to nil. The appeal was allowed in part.
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 Tribunal applied these legal findings as its ratio: (1) where entitlement to CJRS payments is contested the employer bears the evidential burden to prove entitlement on the balance of probabilities and HMRC may rely on the employer's own contemporaneous documents; (2) acceptance of a portal submission and payment does not prevent HMRC from later recovering sums not actually due under Schedule 16 to the Finance Act 2020; and (3) the statutory requirement to have “ceased all work” for a consecutive 21-day period is defeated by any work (including non-income-generating work), so absence of such a cessation defeats furlough entitlement for the relevant claim periods.
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 made non-binding observations that CJRS directions requiring employers to provide information are invitations to support entitlement and need not be struck down as unenforceable in this context; that Article 6 rights were not engaged where the appellant had appeal opportunities and full appellate jurisdiction existed; and that later-revised contemporaneous documents made after HMRC correspondence may be viewed skeptically without explanation.