Top Notch Accountants Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 1 May 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 653 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

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: high

This case concerned FTN penalties on Top Notch Accountants Limited (TNAL) for incorrect CJRS claims and a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) making its sole director, Mr Nazrul Islam (NI), personally liable. The Tribunal found TNAL/NI knew they were not entitled to CJRS for March–October 2020 because required RTI had not been submitted and supporting documents had been manipulated, so FTN penalties of £10,817 and the PLN for that amount were upheld. The Tribunal allowed the appeals in respect of later periods, reducing the penalties by £2,726.40. Permission to apply for appeal was preserved.

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

A final FTT/UT decision on underlying tax assessments can preclude relitigation of factual findings in subsequent related penalty appeals (abuse of process), and deliberate manipulation of supporting documents can support an inference that a claimant knew they were not entitled to CJRS payments. The Tribunal also held it has no jurisdiction to entertain a public law challenge to HMRC’s internal guidance where no statutory route is identified.

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

It was suggested (obiter) that conceding an appeal on quantification grounds (such as reference salary) does not necessarily amount to acceptance of facts relevant to liability at an earlier reference date, and that differing legislative directions between CJRS periods may affect which directive provisions are relevant to reference salary issues.