Cafe Jinnah LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 26 February 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 159 (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
Cafe Jinnah LLP appealed an HMRC assessment seeking recovery of Eat Out to Help Out Scheme payments; HMRC reduced its assessment on review but the tribunal found Officer Maddison’s subjective belief that the claim was overstated was not objectively reasonable on the information available. The tribunal accepted the appellant’s documentary and witness evidence (sample handwritten bills reconciled to daily takings, RTI wage data, balance sheet/returns, and later cash payments analysis) and allowed the appeal, disallowing HMRC’s assessment and awarding the full claimed £103,351.
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 held that an assessing officer under paragraph 9(1) Schedule 16 FA 2020 must have both a genuine subjective belief that a claimant received payments to which it was not entitled and an objectively reasonable basis for that belief before making an assessment; and that primary records comprising sample (even undated) bills reconciled with contemporaneous daily takings and supported by other documentary and testimonial evidence can suffice to corroborate takings for EOHOS claims.
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 suggested (obiter) that manually compiled or hand‑written records are not inherently unreliable simply because they are manual, since adding dates/times post hoc can equally falsify documents, and that the absence of cash bankings is not dispositive where credible evidence shows cash was used to pay wages or suppliers or retained on the premises.