Smart H&S Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 14 August 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1070 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

Smart H&S Ltd appealed an HMRC assessment alleging overclaimed CJRS grants for its two director‑employees. The Tribunal found the correct reference salary for CJRS was the pay reported to HMRC by the relevant reference date (RTI/19 March 2020, circa £719), not later increased salaries, and dismissed Smart's appeal. The decision records a 56‑day right to seek permission to appeal.

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, for employees employed on 19 March 2020, the reference salary for calculating CJRS payments is fixed by the pay reported to HMRC up to that reference date (as shown on RTI), and employers cannot retrospectively inflate salaries after that date to increase CJRS 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 Tribunal referred to the Upper Tribunal's reasoning in Bandstream to underscore that the scheme was not intended to underwrite post‑introduction wage inflation, and remarked that Parliamentary debate should not alter a clear statutory text. These comments were ancillary to the decision.

Warning

- The chunk contains repeated and noisy text (duplication of paragraphs). Notes include duplicated and noisy text; they may be incomplete.