Pipsquid Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 19 June 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 546 (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
Pipsquid Ltd appealed HMRC’s Schedule 16 assessment recovering £45,361.55 of CJRS payments for four employees where RTI returns were filed after the dates required by the First Direction. The Tribunal held Pipsquid did not meet the First Direction’s RTI reporting condition for £39,785.74 of claims and so was not entitled to those payments, declined to allow public law fairness or legitimate expectation arguments to override the Direction, but accepted HMRC’s concession that £5,575.81 met Fifth Direction conditions and reduced the assessment accordingly.
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 a statutory direction governing a relief scheme sets clear, mechanical eligibility conditions (here, RTI reporting dates in the First Direction), a tax tribunal must apply those conditions and does not have jurisdiction under the taxing statutes to set them aside or afford relief by invoking public law principles such as fairness or legitimate expectation.
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 notes that late reliance on authorities at hearing can be prejudicial and may be refused where procedural directions required earlier disclosure, and comments that public law authorities from distinct statutory contexts (for example VAT best-judgment assessments) may have limited relevance to mechanical eligibility rules in the CJRS Directions.