Digital Buying Partners Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 9 May 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 399 (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
Digital Buying Partners Ltd appealed HMRC assessments clawing back £11,208.05 of Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) payments for two employees who were not shown on RTI by the relevant CJRS day (19 March 2020). The First-tier Tribunal found the employees did not meet the statutory RTI inclusion requirement and dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessment. The Tribunal also held it was not permissible to apply a "reasonable excuse" to cure failure to be shown on RTI by the relevant CJRS day because the Directions only permit reasonable-excuse considerations for late claims or amendments.
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 the Directions require an employee to be shown on RTI by a specified "relevant CJRS day," absence of that RTI inclusion means the related CJRS payments are not qualifying costs; the Tribunal will not apply or consider a "reasonable excuse" to override that statutory eligibility condition except where the Directions expressly allow reasonable-excuse relief (for example, in relation to late claims or amendments).
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 judgment suggests that arguments based on the "spirit" of the legislation, fairness, or legitimate expectation, and guidance on reasonable excuse from other penalty contexts, are not matters the Tribunal can rely on to alter clear statutory eligibility conditions for CJRS payments. This appears as commentary rather than necessary reasoning.
Warning
- The chunk contains significant repetition of material (duplicated passages), which may make extraction of a single linear narrative less straightforward. Notes contain significant repetition and may not capture the full judgment text.