Luca Delivery Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 8 March 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 278 (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
Luca Delivery Ltd appealed HMRC assessments reclaiming Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) payments made in respect of an employee, Ms Beatriz Sartor, who was paid from December 2019 but was not included on RTI returns until June 2020. The Tribunal found SJPR Accountants had failed to notify the employee to HMRC but held that the statutory CJRS eligibility requirement—that the employee be included on an RTI return by the relevant CJRS day—was strict and could not be remedied retrospectively. Permission for a late appeal was granted but the appeal was refused; HMRC's assessments were upheld subject to a minor reduction, leaving a confirmed repayment of £4,789.35.
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
The Tribunal treated as determinative that CJRS entitlement requires the employee to have been included on an RTI return made on or before the relevant CJRS day (28 February or 19 March 2020), and that retrospective RTI amendments or third‑party payroll errors cannot cure non‑compliance with that statutory eligibility condition; additionally, the Directions are cumulative so later claims depend on prior compliance with earlier Directions' eligibility criteria.
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 observed that a taxpayer suffering loss from an accountant's error may have a separate civil claim against the accountant, but the tax tribunal cannot decide such a claim or order HMRC to pursue recovery from the accountant; it also noted that non‑serious procedural delay may be excused where HMRC does not object and justice permits.
Warning
Chunk contains significant repetition and duplicated passages; care taken to avoid inventing facts. Notes contain repetition and were extracted from a single chunk; they may be noisy though no specific missing factual elements were identified.