Carlick Contract Furniture Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 7 July 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 220 (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
This appeal concerned whether wages for two employees first reported on PAYE Real Time Information (RTI) on 25 March 2020 qualified as "qualifying costs" under the First and Second CJRS Directions, which required RTI showing payment on or before the relevant CJRS day (28 February 2020 or 19 March 2020). The Tribunal held those payments did not meet paragraph 5(a)(i) of the First/Second Directions and therefore were not qualifying; it allowed the appeal only to the limited extent of reducing HMRC's assessment to exclude the amounts HMRC said related to the two employees. The Tribunal also held the Third Direction only permitted later flexible-furlough claims where a valid prior claim under the original Directions had been made, and rejected attempts to override the Directions' clear eligibility cut-off on grounds of fairness.
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 decision turns on the clear statutory eligibility test in the Directions: for the First and Second CJRS Directions, an employer must have shown payment of earnings for the employee in an RTI return on or before the relevant CJRS day (28 February or 19 March 2020) to establish "qualifying costs"; and under the Third Direction a later flexible-furlough claim requires a valid antecedent claim under the original Directions. No alternative equitable or "spirit of the scheme" basis can be used to circumvent those cut-off rules.
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 noted that press coverage or guidance suggesting a different eligibility date does not trump the statutory test in the Directions, and warned against tribunals substituting subjective fairness assessments for clear, bright-line statutory criteria; these remarks appear as commentary rather than necessary grounds for the decision.