Complete Solutions Europe Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1116 (TC)

[2025] UKFTT 01116 (TC)Case No TC09642
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
Hearing Heard on: 30 April 2025Date Judgment date: 19 September 2025
[By remote video/telephone hearing]
Appeal reference: TC/2022/13939
Income Tax – Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme – fixed rate or non fixed rate employees – reference salary
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCGREGORREBECCA NEWNS
Between
COMPLETE SOLUTIONS EUROPE LIMITEDAppellantTHE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMSRespondentMr David Gullick, Director of Complete Solutions Europe Limited for AppellantMiss Louise Hartstill litigator of HM Revenue and Customs’ Solicitor’s Office for RespondentsDECISION

Introduction

[1]With the consent of the parties, the form of the hearing was V (video). A face to face hearing was not held because a remote hearing was appropriate.[2]The documents to which we were referred are:(1) A hearing bundle of 784 pages;(2) Skeleton arguments from HMRC (30 pages) and the Appellant’s response thereto (4 pages); and(3) Written submissions pursuant to written directions after the hearing from both HMRC (4 pages and an appendix of 13 pages of calculations) and the Appellant (3 pages).[3]Prior notice of the hearing had been published on the gov.uk website, with information about how representatives of the media or members of the public could apply to join the hearing remotely in order to observe the proceedings. As such, the hearing was held in public.[4]This was an appeal against four income tax assessments raised against Complete Solutions Europe Limited (CSEL) in relation to claims under the coronavirus job retention scheme (CJRS).

law

[5]Sections 71 and 76 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 provide the Treasury with the power to direct HMRC’s functions in relation to coronavirus.[6]Under these powers, the Treasury introduced The Coronavirus Act 2020 Functions of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme) Direction, on 15 April 2020, (the “CJRS Direction”) to govern HMRC’s administration of the CJRS. This first CJRS Direction was followed up with a number of further directions as the pandemic progressed and changes were made. However, from a substantive perspective, the relevant parts of the CJRS Direction did not change during the course of the fact pattern in this dispute and therefore we focus on the first CJRS Direction.[7]Under paragraph 3 of the CJRS Direction, an employer could make a claim for support payments under CJRS if they had a PAYE scheme registered on HMRC’s Real Time Information (RTI) system for PAYE by 19 March 2020. This is described as a qualifying employer.[8]Paragraph 5 of the CJRS Direction deals with the qualifying costs that can be claimed: The costs of employment in respect of which an employer may make a claim for payment under CJRS are costs which-(a) relate to an employee- (i) to whom the employer made a payment of earnings in the tax year 2019-20 which is shown in a return under Schedule A1 to the PAYE Regulations that is made on or before a day that is a relevant CJRS day, (ii) in relation to whom the employer has not reported a date of cessation of employment on or before that date, and (iii) who is a furloughed employee (see paragraph 6), and(b) meet the relevant conditions in paragraphs 7.1 to 7.15 in relation to the furloughed employee.[9]Paragraph 6 of the CJRS Direction defines who are furloughed employees.[10]Paragraph 7 of the CJRS Direction is entitled “Qualifying costs - further conditions”. The core relevant parts in this appeal are:(1) paragraph 7.1, which reads as follows: “7.1 Costs of employment meet the conditions in this paragraph if- (a) they relate to the payment of earnings to an employee during a period in which the employee is furloughed, and (b) the employee is being paid- (i) £2500 or more per month (or, if the employee is paid daily or on some other periodic basis, the appropriate pro-rata), or (ii) where the employee is being paid less than the amounts set out in paragraph 7.1(b)(i), the employee is being paid an amount equal to at least 80% of the employee’s reference salary.”(2) Paragraph 7.2 which deals with the reference salary, but only of those who are not fixed rate employees: 7.2 Except in relation to a fixed rate employee, the reference salary of an employee or a person treated as an employee for the purposes of CJRS by virtue of paragraph 13.3(a) (member of a limited liability partnership) is the greater of- (a) the average monthly (or daily or other appropriate pro-rata) amount paid to the employee for the period comprising the tax year 2019-20 (or, if less, the period of employment) before the period of furlough began, and (b) the actual amount paid to the employee in the corresponding calendar period in the previous year.(3) A fixed rate employee is defined in paragraph 7.6 of the CJRS Direction: A person is a fixed rate employee if- (a) the person is an employee or treated as an employee for the purposes of CJRS by virtue of paragraph 13.3(a) (member of a limited liability partnership), (b) the person is entitled under their contract to be paid an annual salary, (c) the person is entitled under their contract to be paid that salary in respect of a number of hours in a year whether those hours are specified in or ascertained in accordance with their contract (“the basic hours”), (d) the person is not entitled under their contract to a payment in respect of the basic hours other than an annual salary, (e) the person is entitled under their contract to be paid, where practicable and regardless of the number of hours actually worked in a particular week or month in equal weekly, multiple of weeks or monthly instalments (“the salary period”), and (f) the basic hours worked in a salary period do not normally vary according to business, economic or agricultural seasonal considerations.(4) Paragraph 7.7 of the CJRS Direction provides that “the reference salary of a fixed rate employee is the amount payable to the employee in the latest salary period ending on or before 19 March 2020”.[11]Paragraph 8.1 sets out the expenditure of employers that will be reimbursed by the government under the CJRS.[12]Where a CJRS claim is made incorrectly, the recipient of the CJRS payments is liable to income tax on the excess under paragraph 8 of Schedule 16 to Finance Act 2020.[13]Paragraph 9 of the same Schedule gives HMRC the power to make assessments to income tax for amounts chargeable under paragraph 8.

Evidence

[14]We heard witness evidence from HMRC Officer Melanie Davies, who had also provided two witness statements. We found her evidence to be straightforward and helpful to the Tribunal.[15]We heard evidence from David Gullick in his capacity as Director of CSEL. We also found his evidence to be straightforward and helpful to the Tribunal.

facts

[16]We find the following facts from the bundle and the evidence presented to us by the two witnesses. Further findings of fact are set out in the discussion below in the relevant context.[17]CSEL is a company, based in Bournemouth, that started as a general building company but, by the time in question, had developed a specialism in fitting, upgrading and refurbishing spas, steam rooms, saunas etc. They had specialist staff who were quick and efficient. CSEL had contracts with large national organisations to do this kind of work on a repeat basis because CSEL could get the jobs done quickly during the client’s down time or off-periods.[18]The work was project based and therefore sporadic. Sometimes they had contracts that lasted for 3 months and then other times there was no work for a month or so.[19]Most of their employees were from Eastern Europe and, when there was no work, they would return to their home countries, returning at short notice when a new contract came in.[20]The employees had contracts under which they were paid a fixed day rate for the days that they worked, but they were not paid (other than holiday or sick pay) for days when there was no work. This was described as a “zero-hours contract”.[21]In the period running up to the beginning of the Coronavirus pandemic CSEL had obtained a new contract for a national holiday park business. It had been expected to start in November or December 2019 but was delayed by the holiday park business. Mr Gullick’s evidence was that this was not uncommon in the industry.[22]The employees went home and were not paid their day rate during this time.[23]On 14 January 2020, CSEL sent letters to five of its employees outlining their rates of pay and responsibilities for the holiday park contract which was, at that time, due to start on 3 February 2020, but this was subject to confirmation.[24]The work commenced on or around 2 March 2020.[25]The workers were paid their salary covering this work period in the 31 March 2020 payroll.[26]The workers were furloughed from 23 March 2020.[27]CSEL made 17 claims under the CJRS amounting to £100,934.88 for the period from 23 March 2020 until 31 July 2021.[28]These claims related to 6 employees – 5 spa engineers and 1 administrative member of staff. There is no dispute regarding the administrative member of staff, who was paid a fixed weekly salary. The remainder of this decision concerns only the claims in relation to the 5 spa engineers.[29]A compliance check into the CJRS claims was opened by HMRC on 22 September 2020.[30]After a series of requests for information, which CSEL complied with, on 15 March 2021 HMRC put a hold on further CJRS pay outs and stopped any further claims from being made.[31]On 22 April 2021 HMRC issued an assessment, in the sum of £70,119.60, for the accounting period ending 27 October 2020, tax year ended 5 April 2021 (Assessment 1).[32]On 29 April 2021 HMRC wrote to the Appellant stating that this assessment had been withdrawn.[33]On 28 October 2021, HMRC sent two assessment notices to the Appellant in the sum of £51,249.68 for the accounting period ended 27 October 2020, tax year ended 5 April 2020 (Assessment 2) and £28,236.42 for the accounting period ended 27 October 2021, tax year ended 5 April 2021 (Assessment 4).[34]On 28 October 2021 HMRC made another Assessment in the sum of £51,249.68 for accounting period end 27 October 2021, tax year ended 5 April 2021. This was created on HMRC’s systems but was not notified to the Appellant (Assessment 3).[35]On 12 November 2021, CSEL made appeals against Assessments 2 and 4. Within this appeal letter, errors in the tax years referred to in the Assessment correspondence were identified.[36]On 24 November 2021, HMRC responded to CSEL. This letter apologised for the error and issued revised Notices of Assessment with the correct year. These were dated 23 November 2021. The letter also explained that HMRC “is not yet in a position to accept an appeal request” and stated that a view of the matter letter would be issued in due course. It also offered a review of the decision. The revised Notices of Assessments also included sections explaining the appeal and review options.[37]On 14 July 2022, HMRC issued a letter to CSEL. In its skeleton argument, HMRC submitted that this letter was a “view of the matter letter” (VOTM). The face of the letter does not use this phrase and it gives very scant detail of HMRC’s view of the matter. It then, again, offers CSEL a review of the decision or the option of appealing to the Tribunal.[38]On 3 August 2022, CSEL requested a review.[39]On 24 August 2022, HMRC sent a letter explaining that the 14 July VOTM had been invalid because there had been no appeal against the assessments issued on 24 November 2021. HMRC treated the 3 August 2022 letter requesting a review as a late appeal and accepted it. HMRC then set out its view of the matter in identical terms to the 14 July 2022 letter.[40]After repeated extensions of time to complete their review, HMRC issued their review conclusion letter on 18 November 2022. This conclusion upheld the principle of the decision, but amended the amounts said to be overclaimed.[41]On 9 December 2022, CSEL appealed to the Tribunal.[42]In May 2023, CSEL applied to be admitted into alternative dispute resolution (ADR). ADR was not successful in resolving the issues.[43]A further delay ensued in June and July 2024 when HMRC explained to CSEL that Assessment 1 had been erroneously withdrawn and Assessment 3 had never been notified to them. CSEL duly appealed against both of these assessments to this Tribunal (after going through the necessary HMRC appeal and VOTM process). parties arguments CSEL Submissions

parties arguments

[44]CSEL submits that the claims for CJRS were correctly made, in particular CSEL calculated the furlough pay to the employees based on contracts agreed prior to the Covid-19 shut down and the suspension of works.[45]The spa engineers were fixed rate employees because they were paid a fixed rate per day when the contracts were available.[46]The amounts the employees were paid in March 2020 prior to their furlough should be taken into account as the employees were working on their agreed rate and were paid at month end as they always were. There was nothing in the legislation that requires the employer to have run a payroll by 19 March 2020 in that month.[47]HMRC’s calculations suggests that CSEL should be paid approximately £80 a week, which is not a living wage and would therefore not have been acceptable.[48]The CJRS was supposed to support companies to pay their employees and keep the companies afloat during the pandemic, which is exactly what CSEL did.[49]HMRC’s interpretation of the CJRS in this case has done exactly the opposite.[50]Having to repay the CJRS funds back to HMRC will put CSEL out of business.[51]HMRC has made repeated errors in the calculations sent to CSEL, which shows how complicated the rules were. There doesn’t appear to be any consequence for HMRC in making these errors, which is inequitable.[52]CSEL made further claims after the hold on claims was lifted because they understood that HMRC now accepted the position was correct. It would therefore be unfair for HMRC to claw back these amounts now. HMRC Submissions Assessments

HMRC Submissions

[53]It is helpful first to set out HMRC’s position with regards to the four different assessments and which we are expecting to consider.[54]With regards to Assessment 1, HMRC acknowledge that they did not have the power to cancel the assessment (as they had purported to do) and that it therefore remains live and is subject to appeal.[55]HMRC invite the Tribunal to vary the assessment from its original amount £70,119.60 down to £44,310.36 (which is the amount calculated by the review officer). This assessment covers the accounting period ended 28 October 2020 in tax year ending 5 April 2021.[56]With regards to Assessment 2, HMRC requests the Tribunal to vary this assessment to nil, on the basis that it covered the same period as Assessment 1.[57]With regards to Assessment 3, HMRC acknowledge that the assessment was not notified to CSEL until 18 June 2024, although it had been raised in HMRC’s systems on 28 October 2021.[58]It covers the accounting period ended 28 October 2021, in the tax year ending 5 April 2021 and is for an amount £51,249.68.[59]HMRC submit that this is a live assessment but invites the Tribunal to vary it to nil, on the basis that it covered the same period as Assessment 4.[60]With regards to Assessment 4, HMRC acknowledge that the correspondence they issued purporting to amend this assessment were not within HMRC’s powers and therefore the original assessment remains live in this appeal.[61]The assessment covers the accounting period ending 27 October 2021, for the tax year ending 5 April 2021 in the amount of £28,236.42.[62]HMRC invites the Tribunal to reduce this assessment to £18,311.41, which is the amount the review officer calculated.[63]In summary, therefore, HMRC asks this Tribunal to uphold assessments 1 and 4, but to reduce the amounts assessed to £44,310.36 and £18,311.41, giving rise to a total of £62,621.77.

HMRC errors and legitimate expectation

[64]HMRC acknowledge that they made the errors made in issuing, cancelling and amending assessments and apologises for the confusion caused.[65]However, HMRC submit that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over HMRC’s conduct and that therefore the appropriate action regarding complaints is to use HMRC’s complaints process, followed, if necessary, by a complaint to the ombudsman.[66]With regard to the question of whether HMRC misled CSEL when it allowed further claims to be submitted, HMRC submit that this was not the case, as a matter of fact, but even if it was, this would be a claim based on public law arguments of legitimate expectation, which is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

CJRS claims

[67]HMRC accept that CSEL was an eligible employer which had a PAYE scheme registered by 19 March 2020 in accordance with the CJRS Direction. They accept that CSEL was therefore entitled to make CJRS claims.[68]HMRC also accept that the five relevant employees were furloughed employees.[69]HMRC argue that CSEL claimed more than its qualifying costs within the CJRS Direction. This is on the basis that:(1) These five employees were not fixed rate employees because the RTI submissions made in respect of them over the previous periods show that they were paid variable amounts;(2) The amount that should have been claimed as their reference salary was that in accordance with paragraph 7.2 of the CJRS Direction, being either the average monthly amount paid in the tax year 2019-20 or the amount paid in the corresponding month;(3) HMRC’s calculations are made on that basis, whereas the claims were made on the basis of the amount paid to the five employees in the period ended 31 March 2020. Since the reference date is 19 March 2020, this is not the correct period.

How the reference salary should be calculated

[70]For variably paid employees HMRC submits that the reference salary should be calculated in accordance with Paragraph 7.2 of the CJRS Direction. HMRC further submits that this paragraph is clear that both methods of calculating reference salaries for variable paid employees should be based on amounts paid, not amounts to be paid.[71]The average amount should be calculated by averaging amounts paid to an employee between 06 April 2019 (or the day they commenced employment if they were not employed by the claimant company on 06 April 2019) and the day before they were furloughed. This could be achieved by calculating a daily, weekly or monthly wage or salary.[72]HMRC therefore submits in the case of CSEL employees that this period is 06 April 2019 to 22 March 2020 (being that the first claim to CJRS was from 23 March 2020).[73]The new wages that CSEL had agreed to pay their employees under the new contract were not paid because the employees did not start work on that project until early March 2020. Therefore, although work was started, the employees had earned the salary but had not been paid that salary.[74]Salaries which had been earned by the employees for work done between 01 March 2020 and 22 March 2020 on the new contract were not used or considered, because these did not form part of what the employees had been paid before they were furloughed. HMRC submits that this is the correct position based on the CJRS Direction.

discussion

[75]Since Assessments 2 and 3 were both duplicate assessments covering the same period as Assessments 1 and 4, we exercise our power to amend these assessments to nil in accordance with section 50(8) of the Taxes Management Act 1970.[76]The remainder of this decision therefore deals with Assessments 1 and 4.[77]As noted above, there is no dispute that CSEL was a qualifying employer and that the five employees were furloughed employees. This dispute primarily centres on what the appropriate qualifying costs were for those employees.[78]Considering first whether the five employees were fixed rate employees. The full text of paragraph 7.6 of the CJRS Direction is set out above. Applying those sections to the five employees in question:(1) There were treated as employees;(2) They were not entitled to an annual salary. Mr Gullick made it clear in his evidence that they were paid only when the contract work was available. There was no agreement for an annual salary to be paid;(3) Therefore they cannot have been entitled to be paid that salary in relation to a number of hours in the year, because there were no minimum hours available;(4) Paragraph (d) does not apply because there was no salary;(5) There was no entitlement to be paid a fixed instalment for each salary period, because they were only paid if there was contracted work; and(6) The hours worked (even if they did not meet the requirement of basic hours), did vary according to business considerations and therefore the last condition could not be met.[79]As a result, we find that the five employees were not fixed rate employees. The fact that there was an agreed day rate for when they did obtain work is not enough to meet the requirements under paragraph 7.6 of the CJRS Direction to be treated as fixed rate employees.[80]Therefore the qualifying costs for these employees must be based on their reference salary in accordance with paragraph 7.2 of the CJRS Direction.[81]The claims made were all based on the monthly salary that was paid to the five employees for the month of March 2020. It is clear that this was not the correct reference salary since that is neither an average salary or a corresponding month salary.[82]The next question to be answered then, is what the appropriate reference salary should have been.[83]There was some confusion at the hearing concerning the relevance of 19 March 2020 in relation to non-fixed rate employees, with HMRC asserting that it remained a relevant date. This is why written submissions were requested.[84]In HMRC’s written submissions they accepted that it was not relevant to calculating reference salary for non fixed-rate employees.[85]The reference salary must be calculated by applying paragraph 7.2 of the CJRS Direction, under which it is the greater of:a. the average monthly (or daily or other appropriate pro-rata) amount paid to the employee for the period comprising the tax year 2019-20 (or, if less, the period of employment) before the period of furlough began, andb. the actual amount paid to the employee in the corresponding calendar period in the previous year.[86]We will refer to limb a as the averaging method and limb b as the lookback method.[87]There is no dispute here about the use of the lookback method. However, the parties disagree about the extent to which the payments made to the employees in respect of the new contract in March 2020 can be taken into account in the averaging method.[88]HMRC argue that the wording of the averaging method prevents them from taking into account any of that period because it was only paid to the employees on 31 March 2020. They place reliance on the use of the phrase “amount paid” and argue that this must have been paid “before the period of furlough began”. They say that because the CJRS Direction refers only to amounts paid and not to amounts earned, it must mean only those amounts that are paid before the furlough period began.[89]CSEL argues that the period from the start of the contract until they were furloughed should be taken into account. They say that this pay related to work done prior to the COVID-19 restrictions came into play and pursuant to arrangements with their staff and contracts with third parties that were agreed long before that.[90]The letters sent in January 2020 and invoices and correspondence with the third party contractors are clear evidence that the new contract was established before the CJRS was announced (and HMRC did not dispute that). However, the question is whether the wording of paragraph 7.2 allows those payments to be taken into account.[91]This is a question of statutory interpretation. The key is whether the word “paid” is linked to the phrase “before the period of furlough began”.[92]We note that it does not refer to amounts paid “in” any given period, but rather refers to amounts paid “for” a period. In our view this intends to capture the amounts of remuneration actually paid to the employee in respect of the period in question, whenever they are in fact paid.[93]It then goes on to identify what the period comprises. The remainder of the sentence (leaving aside the parentheses for the moment) is:
“the tax year 2019-20 before the period of furlough began”
. Other than the parentheses, there is no punctuation in the sentence at all, which might indicate an intention to sever one part from the other.[94]Therefore in terms of plain language, the relevant period is the period from 6 April 2019 to the day before the furlough began. In this case that would be 6 April 2019 to 22 March 2020.[95]This is supported by how this would apply in other fact patterns:(1) If an employee was not in fact furloughed until May 2020, then the relevant pay would have been that paid over the whole tax year;(2) If an employee only started employment in January 2020, the words in parenthesis “(or, if less, the period of employment)” would come into play and the average would be across the period from 1 January 2020 to the day before furlough (or to 5 April 2020 if the furlough began in the following tax year.[96]We also do not consider that this creates an absurdity. This is one part of the calculation which is intended to capture an appropriate salary to create an average from over a reasonably long period. For some, who started employment not long before COVID-19 restrictions applied, this period would be relatively short, but for others this would capture the whole tax year. As has been said in other cases concerning CJRS, these directions were drafted extremely quickly and were intended to support employers but could not realistically have catered for every possible circumstance. However, that does not alter the words of the statute, which do not limit the reference salary to amounts that were paid prior to the reference date of 19 March 2020 nor to the date before furlough.[97]We also note that, included in the bundle and referred to in Officer Davies witness statement, is a piece of HMRC guidance entitled “Work out 80% of your employee’s wages”. This includes guidance and examples for employers on how HMRC suggest that calculations should be done. Under the heading “Employees whose pay varies and were employed from 6 April 2019”, guidance is given for how to work out using the averaging method:
“To work out 80% of the average monthly wages for the last tax year: 1. Start with the amount they earned in the tax year up to the day before they were furloughed. 2. Divide it by the number of days from the start of the tax year – including non-working days (up to the day before they were furloughed, or 5 April 2020 – whichever is earlier) 3. Multiply by the number of furlough days in this pay period. 4. Multiply by 80%.”
[98]The guidance then goes on to give an example of a worker and refers to what the worker earned in the period up to the day they were placed on furlough and does not make any reference to when they were paid. It goes on to calculate the average based on the number of days in the tax year up to that point, with again no reference to when the person was paid.[99]For this reason, we have concluded that the reference pay under the averaging method should include all pay in respect of the period up to the date of the furlough, i.e. 22 March 2020, even though it was not paid until 31 March 2020.[100]In the assessment figures defended by HMRC, they agreed that for each CJRS claim, they had applied the most favourable amount for CESL, i.e. if the lookback method produced a higher claim, then this was used, whereas if the averaging method produced a higher claim, then this method was used for the given month. Broadly speaking this meant that if the workers had been on a job in the relevant month in 2019-2020 then the lookback method was used, but if not, then the averaging method was used.[101]The effect of the conclusion above is that the amounts used in calculating the averaging method were too low, because they did not include the higher salary paid for the period from the start of the holiday parks contract work until 22 March 2020.[102]We do not have calculations that exactly match that outcome and therefore direct the parties to agree the reduction to the Assessments that will be necessary in order to reflect the change to calculating the average.[103]In relation to the remaining arguments raised by CESL, we find as follows:(1) While we sympathise with their frustration at the number of errors made in correspondence with HMRC, this is something in the nature of complaint and not in the scope of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal;(2) The claim that HMRC had misled CESL by allowing the company to continue making claims after they had been suspended would, if it was made out, amount to a claim based on legitimate expectation, which is not within the scope of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction in the context of the CJRS. Public law style arguments in the context of CJRS have been dismissed by other first-tier tribunals in Oral Healthcare Limited v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 357 (TC) and Carlick Contract Furniture Limited v HMRC[2022] UKFTT 220 (TC) on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to consider these arguments. The Tribunals and Courts in the binding decisions of Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Hok Ltd. [2012] UKUT (TCC), Abdul Noor v HMRC [2013] UKUT 071 (TCC) and Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme v HMRC [2015] EWCA Civ 713 have concluded that the first-tier tribunal has no general jurisdiction to determine matters which are decided in the course of an action for judicial review in the Administrative Court, including matters of fairness and/or legitimate expectation.

disposition

[104]For the reasons set out above, we:(1) reduce Assessments 2 and 3 to nil;(2) uphold the validity of the raising of Assessments 1 and 4 on the basis that the claims for CJRS were overclaimed; direct the parties to agree a reduction to Assessments 1 and 4 on the basis of the averaging method taking into account the amount paid to the furloughed employees in respect of the period from the start of the new contract up to 22 March 2020.Right to apply for permission to appeal[105]This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice. Release date: 19th SEPTEMBER 2025