Timco Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 10 June 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 883 (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
Timco Ltd appealed HMRC income tax assessments recovering Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) payments totalling initially £37,107.70; HMRC's review increased the assessments to £24,182.36. The Tribunal found the two employee-directors were variable-rate, accepted HMRC's RTI-based methodology and two reviewing adjustments (exclude pay after 19 March 2020 and treat May 2020 claim periods separately), and dismissed the appeal, confirming the varied assessments. The Tribunal exercised its power to increase the original assessments to the reviewed totals if required; no penalty was charged.
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 contractual or contemporaneous evidence is absent, RTI submissions can be relied on to determine whether an employee is fixed-rate or variable-rate and to calculate reference salary under Paragraph 7.2 of the CJRS Directions; for variable-rate employees reference salary is to be determined for each employee and for each separate claim period by taking the higher of the average pro-rata pay before furlough began and the lookback amount.
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 treating separate CJRS claim periods separately for reference salary calculation is appropriate; it also noted that excluding payments received after 19 March 2020 when calculating averages can be justified where HMRC's adjustment benefits the taxpayer, that no suggestion of deliberate overclaiming existed and that late supplementary material may be admitted in the interests of justice.