Daniel Cotton v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1398 (TC)

[2025] UKFTT 01398 (TC)

Case No TC09687

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

TAX CHAMBER

Hearing Heard on: 26 June 2025

Date Judgment date: 20 November 2025

By remote video hearing

Appeal reference: TC/2022/12662

Coronavirus Pandemic – Self Employment Income Support Scheme (“SEISS”) – was the Appellant self-employed and eligible for support – no – was a valid assessment raised by HMRC to recover the support – yes – appeal dismissed

Before

TRIBUNAL JUDGE GERAINT WILLIAMS

MR MOHAMMED FAROOQ

Between

DANIEL COTTONAppellant

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HM REVENUE AND CUSTOMSRespondent

Mr Daniel Cotton, the Appellant in person. for Appellant

Mr Omar Riaz, litigator of HM Revenue and Customs’ Solicitor’s Office for Respondents

DECISION

Introduction

[1]This is an appeal by the Appellant (“Mr Cotton”) against a Notice of Assessment (“Assessment”) issued by The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) on 4 April 2022 under Paragraph 9 of Schedule 16 to the Finance Act 2020, in the amount of £8,352.00 for the 2020/21 year. The Assessment relates to three payments under the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (“SEISS”) in respect of the Coronavirus Support Payment (“Support Payment”).

[2]With the consent of the parties the form of the hearing was video attended by both parties using the Tribunal video hearing system. A face-to-face hearing was not held for the convenience of all parties.

[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]The documents before the Tribunal were contained in a hearing bundle extending to 459 pages. We had a skeleton argument from HMRC and an e-mail from Mr Cotton dated 17 December 2024 which was treated as both Mr Cotton’s witness statement and skeleton argument.

[5]We heard evidence from Mr Cotton and Officer Steven Bulch. A member of HMRC’s COVID Compliance team, Officer Jill Mayne, was allocated and worked the 2019/20 non-filer case in relation to Mr Cotton. Officer Mayne was on long-term absence from work and unable to provide a witness statement. Officer Bulch, who is Officer Mayne’s line manager, prepared the witness statement as a replacement witness. Officer Bulch was classed as the assessing officer and named on the Assessment sent to Mr Cotton. Part of Officer Bulch’s role was to review presented information about cases and agree with the allocated Officer whether a taxpayer could be assessed before HMRC issued the assessment. As such, he had knowledge of Mr Cotton’s case.

The facts

[6]Mr Cotton has been within the self-assessment regime since 10 February 2016.

[7]Mr Cotton declared self-employment income in his 2018/19 Self-Assessment Tax Return (“SATR”), stating he worked as a ‘Pipefitter’ and the business name was “DC Pipefitting”. He was invited to claim the SEISS grants due to the profits of this trade in 2018/19 being chargeable to income tax under Part 2 of ITTOIA 2005.

[8]On 15 May 2020, Mr Cotton applied for Support Payments through SEISS. A payment was made to him in the sum of £2,905.00 on or around 26 May 2020. This was a claim in SEISS phase 1.

[9]On 17 August 2020, Mr Cotton applied for Support Payments through SEISS. A payment was made to him in the sum of £2,542.00 on or around 25 August 2020. This was a claim in SEISS phase 2.

[10]On 1 December 2020, Mr Cotton applied for Support Payments through SEISS. A payment was made to him in the sum of £2,905.00 on or around 9 December 2020. This was a claim in SEISS phase 3.

[11]On 15 December 2020, Mr Cotton submitted his SATR for the 2019/20 tax year. The SATR stated he was employed as a seafarer with Atlantic Pacific Marine (“APM”). The SATR stated that Mr Cotton had an income of £44,011.00, and that the Seafarers Earnings Deduction (“SED”) had been claimed. No income was declared on the SATR showing that he carried on a trade. The SATR was filed by Mr Cotton’s accountant, Mr Walker of Marine Tax Services (Cardiff) Limited (“MTSC”). Mr Cotton confirmed in oral evidence that he had never met his accountant, Mr Walker had been provided with all relevant information by him for completion of the 2019/20 SATR and had acted on his instructions.

[12]On 5 November 2021, a letter was sent by HMRC to Mr Cotton as part of a compliance campaign. The “one-to-many” letter was issued to all SEISS claimants who did not declare the trading income within their 2019/20 SATR. The letter stated: “Our records show that you claimed a Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) grant. As part of the claim process, you told us you were trading as Self-Employed or in a Partnership when you claimed the grant. This letter relates to the first, second and third SEISS grant(s) only. Filing a tax return is a requirement to be eligible for SEISS. We are writing to you as you have either:• not submitted an Income Tax Self-Assessment return for 2019-2020 or

• have submitted a return but have not completed the Self-Employment or Partnership page(s) You need to file your return and/or complete those pages so we can check you are eligible for the SEISS grant you claimed. As a reminder, to be eligible for SEISS, you must have:

• traded as Self-Employed or in a Partnership in the tax years: — 2018-2019 and submitted your Self-Assessment tax return on or before 23 April 2020 for that year — 2019-2020

• intended to continue trading in 2020-2021 If you were not trading in the 2019-2020 tax year, you will need to repay the SEISS grant you received. What you need to do now

• Make sure you are registered for Self-Assessment

• Submit your Income Tax Self-Assessment return for 2019-2020 and/or complete the Self-Employment or Partnership page(s) if you were trading

• Pay back your SEISS grant if you weren't trading in 2019-2020 If you are registered for Self-Assessment but have ceased trading, you need to tell us. Call the Self-Assessment helpline on 0300 200 3310 so we can update our records. You should show this letter to your Tax Adviser or Accountant if you have one. Please take action within 30 days, or we will need you to repay the grants you received. We are writing to you as you have either: As a reminder, to be eligible for SEISS, you must have:

What you need to do now

[13]No self-employment page(s) were submitted by Mr Cotton or his accountant following HMRC’s letter.

[14]On 5 December 2021, Mr Cotton completed a “Repay Self-Employment Income Support Scheme grant money” form which confirmed that the reason for the repayment was:

“I am not eligible – I should not have claimed. I thought I was entitled to it, only received letter other week saying I wasn’t.”

[15]Mr Cotton’s completed response to the second question “Amended your self Assessment tax return” was “No”, the 2019/20 SATR had not been amended.

[16]On 1 April 2022 the case was allocated to Officer Mayne following Mr Cotton’s disclosure that he needed to pay back the SEISS grant.

[17]On 4 April 2022, HMRC issued the Assessment under paragraph 9 Schedule 16 Finance Act 2020 in the sum of £8,352.

[18]On 7 April 2022, Mr Cotton telephoned HMRC to discuss the SEISS. He advised that due to working at sea in the relevant tax year, he understood that he was classed as employed in that tax year. The telephone call transcript states:

“25. Advisor Ok do you know what Mr Cotton there is a note on there from my colleague on the self-employed side on the 1 April saying that there is no self-employment pages erm no self-employed income shown on the 2019/2020 tax return so just looking at that bit there makes it seem as if oh ok it doesn’t look as if you were self-employed at all during that year so something’s gone a bit wrong hasn’t it 26. Caller Yes because do you know what it was because this is what I understand so I knew because I work away, I’m self-employed and I work off-shore so that year I was off-shore right so I still had to do my tax return but I didn’t know this but you are classed as employed right in that year so it wasn’t until (Inaudible) but surely HMRC would have known, I do, I do understand that I do understand in that year I wasn’t but because I was at sea you are classed as employed 27. Advisor Right, yeh 28. Caller And that was actually, that was actually new to me 29. Advisor So, a bit of a shock then 30. Caller Still I thought at the time, it should have been err, for me it would have been better if they said oh Mr Cotton you weren’t eligible for the grant because I know people who applied for it and they weren’t eligible for it and they said unfortunately we can’t but it was the fact that it came up for me and said that I was, that it all came to light you know what I mean … 40. Caller But that’s when so you know like one of your colleagues, so you know on the 2019/2020 year like one person told us to amend my tax return just to say that I was self-employed and I thought well that’s wrong, thars [sic] illegal”

[19]On 8 April 2022, Mr Cotton appealed the Assessment to HMRC. The Grounds of Appeal relevantly stated:

“I am appealing against the decision to invalidate the SEISS against me. My reasonings for this is as far as I was concerned, I was self employed for the eligible years and acted in complete good faith when applying for the grants, while Incas [sic] out of work during the pandemic and had no income or earnings. When I applied for the grants, HMRC accepted my claim and I received the ﬁrst 3 grants. It was not until I applied for the fourth grant that it got brought to my attention that I wasn't eligible. My question is why this wasn't picked up on my ﬁrst claim, as HMRC had all my relevant documentation, and the grants were down to the penny that my accountant had told me I would receive. I know that some people got rejected straight away for the grants, but HMRC accepted mine, so as far as I am concerned, this is an error on their behalf, not mine.”

[20]On 11 August 2022, HMRC issued a “View of the Matter” letter to Mr Cotton. The letter stated that Mr Cotton was not eligible for the SEISS grants payments on the basis that his 2019/20 SATR did not contain any evidence that he was conducting a trade during the tax year. The letter stated: “I have looked again at your case and considered the further information you have provided and have found the following:• Your 2019-20 Self-Assessment tax return does not contain any evidence that you were conducting a trade during the year, e.g. there is no self-employment page, or partnership page showing self-employment.

• Your 2019-20 Self-Assessment tax return declares employment as a seafarer with a claim for the Seafarer’s Earnings Deduction. What this means Based on the information you have provided you did not meet the eligibility criteria (listed earlier in this letter) for the SEISS grants at the time you received them.”

• Your 2019-20 Self-Assessment tax return declares employment as a seafarer with a claim for the Seafarer’s Earnings Deduction.

[21]On 7 November 2022, Mr Cotton appealed the Assessment to the Tribunal. Officer Bulch checked HMRC’s systems and data which confirmed that to date Mr Cotton has not amended his SATR return to show relevant trading income for the purposes of SEISS and no new information to support a trade other than his income from overseas work has been submitted by or on behalf of Mr Cotton.

[22]On 11 January 2023, HMRC e-mailed Mr Cotton informing him his Grounds of Appeal raised legitimate expectation arguments which the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider. It was explained that unless he had valid grounds of appeal disputing the Assessment on the basis that he satisfied the SEISS conditions of eligibility, HMRC would apply to have the appeal struck out. Additionally, the e-mail asked whether the Appellant did carry out a trade in 2019-20, and if he did to provide evidence of the same. The Appellant was asked for a response by no later than 18 January 2023.

[23]On 15 January 2023, Mr Cotton responded to the e-mail dated 11 January 2023 but failed to provide alternative grounds for appealing the Assessment on the basis that he satisfied the SEISS conditions of eligibility. The e-mail stated:

“I am totally astounded that after all of this time, written correspondence and phone calls, you have now decided that I have no right to appeal. I have consistently asked for copies of the phone calls with HMRC which have not been forthcoming. Upon phoning HMRC, yoi [sic] get told by an automated message that all phone calls are recorded. I fervently believe that these recordings would justify my reasons for making the claims. One has to remember that HMRC had at the time, at their disposal, all of my relevant work details. In fact, as previously [sic] mentioned, one of the HMRC employees told me to just change my employment details from employed to self employed, which is essentially breaking the law. Additionally, as I got advised to amend my tax return, but when my accountant filed filed [sic] an amendment, it was no change on the HMRC end (all in the photographic evidence sent earlier) In summary I made the claim in complete good faith. HMRC had all my details before any payments were made. I would suggest that it was the incompetence of the person handling my claim that has created this nightmare for me. I would still like to proceed with the tribunal hearing.”

I would still like to proceed with the tribunal hearing.”

[24]On 17 January 2023, HMRC e-mailed Mr Cotton to ask whether he wished to make a complaint through the Respondents’ complaints process. Mr Cotton did not respond.

[25]On 19 January 2023, HMRC submitted their strike out application and on 14 May 2024, a hearing took place to consider the strike out application.

[26]On 14 May 2024, the Tribunal heard HMRC’s application to strike out the appeal. On 23 May 2024, the Tribunal issued a decision refusing the strike-out application in part, striking out the ground of legitimate expectation but allowing the appeal to proceed on the question of SEISS eligibility. The Tribunal issued directions of the same date regarding the next steps in the appeal. It was Directed that “the Appellant shall by 5pm on 10 June 2024 provide evidence of his self-employment status in the tax year 2019-2020 and shall also provide further and better particulars of his grounds of appeal.”

[27]On 10 June 2024, Mr Cotton e-mailed the Tribunal and HMRC attaching two letters:

“Please see attached a letter from Atlantic Pacific Marine and from the accountant in Wales explaining my employment status. I hope that this clears a lot of the muddy water up for all parties, and shows that I was indeed self employed, as I am now. I only back back [sic] in the country on Saturday 1st June so I’ve had very little time to try and get things organised.”

[28]The letter from APM dated 31 May 2024 stated:

“To whom this may concern, Atlantic Pacific Marine Ltd (APM) are a project management company. APM predominantly manage engineering projects onboard cruise ships which sail internationally. Typical projects would be concerned with the structure, pipework and electrics of the vessels. APM source labour from a subcontractor agency named Priority Accounts Ltd. Therefore, the tradesmen are not contracted by APM or Priority Accounts and just paid on a per project basis using their hours worked and agreed hourly rate. Typical projects range from a couple of days to a couple of months. I can confirm Mr Daniel Andrew Cotton is not an employee of APM and therefore does not have any related benefits including holiday pay, sick pay etc. Daniel has represented APM on many projects over the past few years and is paid as above through Priority Accounts Ltd.”

[29]The letter from the MTSC dated 5 June 2024 stated:

“FOR SUBMISSION TO THE TRIBUNAL SERVICES Dear Mr Cotton, We have been requested to confirm our understanding of your employment status. We have acted for you from January 2019 and formerly commenced to act for you in August 2020. Your position onboard a ship is of particular problems in that one can not be self employed on a vessel, being technically employed by the Captain. However, the terms of your contract with Atlantic Pacific means that you are sub-contracted to them to perform the duties as required, they having received instructions from the owners of the vessels concerned.”

[30]Further and better particulars of Mr Cotton’s Grounds of Appeal were not provided.

Burden of proof

[31]The burden of proof is on HMRC to prove that the conditions for raising a valid assessment are met and the burden of proof on Mr Cotton to prove that he has been overcharged by the Assessment. The standard of proof is the ordinary civil standard on the balance of probabilities. Legislation Background and relevant legislation relating to SEISS

Legislation

[32]In March 2020, the Chancellor announced SEISS.

[33]On 26 March 2020, the government published guidance entitled "Check if you can claim a grant through the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme".

[34]Sections 71 and 76 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 provide the Treasury with the power to direct HMRC's functions in relation to coronavirus.

[35]On 30 April 2020, the government published the first Treasury Direction to HMRC and the statutory rules enabling HMRC to administer SEISS.

[36]The Schedule attached to the first Direction setting the parameters for SEISS is detailed.

[37]At paragraph 3.1 it stipulates that a claim must be made “in such form and manner and contain such information as HMRC may require at any time … to establish entitlement to payment under SEISS.”

[38]Paragraph 3.2 stipulates that a claim must be made by a “qualifying person”.

[39]Paragraph 3.3. stipulates that a claim may only be made in relation to a trade the business of which has been adversely affected by coronavirus.

[40]Paragraph 4 defines a qualifying person and the relevant conditions in this instance are:- “4.2 The person must –(a) Carry on a trade the business of which has been adversely affected by reason of circumstances arising as a result of coronavirus or coronavirus disease,

(b) have delivered a tax return for a relevant tax year on or before 23 April 2020,

(d) intend to carry on a trade in the tax year 2020-21 … (f) be an individual, and (g) meet the profits condition"

[41]Paragraph 13 is the Interpretation paragraph and “trade” and “trading income” are defined as follows:- “'trade' means a trade, profession or vocation the profits of which are chargeable to income tax under Part 2 of ITTOIA 2005 (trading income) and in this definition 'trade' has the same meaning as in section 989 of ITA 2007; “trading profits” means the profits of a trade and are calculated in accordance with paragraph 7.”

[42]A second Direction was issued on 1 July 2020 (and a number of further Directions were also issued during the pandemic). The second Direction extended and modified SEISS. The Schedule to it is also detailed.

[43]Paragraph 3 states that all of the provisions of SEISS being the first Direction and Schedule continue to apply except where the context otherwise provides.

[44]Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the first SEISS Direction dated 30 April 2020 states:

“The purpose of SEISS is to provide for payments to be made to persons carrying on a trade the business of which has been adversely affected by the health, social and economic emergency in the United Kingdom resulting from coronavirus and coronavirus disease.”

[45]The Schedule to the second Direction modified and extended that paragraph 2 and the relevant provisions read as follows:- “(b) Provide for payments to be made to relevant persons carrying on a trade the business of which has been adversely affected by the health, social and economic emergency in the United Kingdom resulting from coronavirus and coronavirus disease but who would not otherwise qualify for a payment under SEISS…”

Schedule 16 Finance Act 2020

[46]Paragraph 8 of Schedule 16 makes a recipient of Support Payments under SEISS liable to income tax where they are not entitled to it in terms of SEISS. Paragraph 8(4) details when income tax becomes chargeable which is when the Support Payments were received if there was no eligibility.

[47]Insofar as relevant, paragraph 9 Schedule 16 Finance Act 2020 states:

“Assessments of income tax chargeable under paragraph 8 (1) If an officer of Revenue and Customs considers (whether on the basis of information or documents obtained by virtue of the exercise of powers under Schedule 36 to FA 2008 or otherwise) that a person has received an amount of a coronavirus support payment to which the person is not entitled, the officer may make an assessment in the amount which ought in the officer's opinion to be charged under paragraph 8 . (2) An assessment under sub-paragraph (1) may be made at any time, but this is subject to sections 34 and 36 of TMA 1970. (3) Parts 4 to 6 of TMA 1970 contain other provisions that are relevant to an assessment under sub-paragraph (1) (for example, section 31 makes provisions about appeals and section 59B(6) makes provision about the time to pay income tax payable by virtue of an assessment). …”

SED

[48]Part 5, Chapter 6, Section 378 ITEPA 2003 provides that a deduction is allowed pursuant to Part 5, Chapter 6, Section 378 ITEPA 2003 from earnings from an employment of a seafarer if: s.378(1)(a) the earnings are relevant general earnings,

(b) the duties of the employment are performed wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and

[49]Section 384(1) of ITEPA 2003 defines employment ‘as a seafarer’ as being:

“… an employment (other than Crown employment) consisting of the performance of duties on a ship or of such duties and others incidental to them.”

[50]Relevant general earnings are defined as:

“s.378(5) (a) taxable earnings under section 15, 22 or 26, or (b) general earnings- (i) to which section 27 applies, and (ii) which are for a period in which the employee is liable under the law of an EEA State (other than the United Kingdom) to tax in that State by reason of domicile or residence.” (i) to which section 27 applies, and (ii) which are for a period in which the employee is liable under the law of an EEA State (other than the United Kingdom) to tax in that State by reason of domicile or residence.”

[51]Taxable earnings under Sections 22, 26 and 27 are covered by Part 2 Chapter 5 ITEPA 2003, which concerns non-resident employees.

Discussion

[52]The points in dispute are whether the assessment was validly made, within time, and in the correct amount, and whether Mr Cotton satisfied the eligibility conditions for SEISS payments.

[53]HMRC’s position was that Mr Cotton did not satisfy the conditions for claiming SEISS, his 2019/20 SATR recorded employment as a seafarer and included a claim for SED. SED is only available to employees; it cannot be claimed by a person carrying on a trade taxable under Part 2 of ITTOIA 2005. Mr Cotton’s position was that he had always regarded himself to be a self-employed pipefitter, his duties had not changed in the 2019/20 tax year and he has never been a “seafarer”. His understanding of seafarer was “a seafarer will be directly employed by the vessel, not a subcontractor, and serve as a crew member doing their duties. These crew members are fully employed by Carnival cruises, P&O cruises etc, and do get all of the employment benefits which I don’t.”

[54]Mr Cotton’s explanation as why his 2019/20 SATR stated that he was employed when his evidence was that he had always been self-employed was that he had relied upon MTSC’s advice and “If accountant said particular problems how should I know?”. Mr Cotton confirmed that he still considered he was self-employed and that in respect of his employment status he was “not the guy to be asked. That would be the accountant.” It is clear to us from his evidence that Mr Cotton was reliant upon the expertise and advice of his professional adviser, MTSC, to as to his employment status when he was providing his services as a pipefitter onboard the “Noordam”.

[55]HMRC’s Help Sheet 205 (“HS205”) Seafarers’ Earnings Deduction states in the second paragraph “The deduction is available to employees”. Paragraph 4. Additional Information states “In the ‘Any other information’ box, box 19 of the SA100 Tax Return on page 7, enter the names of the ships on which you carried out employment duties in the year”. Mr Cotton’s 2019/20 SATR was completed in accordance with HMRC’s SED guidance and provided all the information required for a claim to SED. We accept that Mr Cotton may consider that he was consistently providing the same services as a pipefitter without any change in his day-to-day activities; however, his 2019/20 SATR clearly stated he was employed and satisfied the requirements for SED. Mr Cotton confirmed to HMRC on multiple occasions that he did not wish to amend his 2019/20 SATR. It is well established by case law that the taxpayer remains liable for any incorrect claims made on their tax return, even if the mistake (if it was a mistake) was caused by an accountant or tax adviser. We note that HMRC have, correctly in our view, not sought to impose any penalty for failing to take reasonable care.

[56]The Directions made by the Tribunal on 23 May 2024 following its decision striking out Mr Cotton’s claim of legitimate expectation directed that “the Appellant shall by 5pm on 10 June 2024 provide evidence of his self-employment status in the tax year 2019-2020 and shall also provide further and better particulars of his grounds of appeal.”

[57]The documents provided by Mr Cotton in compliance with the direction are the documents at paragraphs 28 and 29 above. HMRC accepted (in respect of the letter from APM) that Mr Cotton was not an employee of APM but that he clearly met the criteria as a seafarer. We do not agree that the natural conclusion on reading APM’s letter is that Mr Cotton “clearly met the criteria as a seafarer”. In our judgment, all that can be concluded from APM’s letter is that Mr Cotton was not, despite his 2019/20 SATR, employed by APM and that he worked on engineering projects managed by APM carrying out pipework.” The letter is silent on the capacity upon which Mr Cotton provided his services as a pipefitter on board the “Noordam”.

[58]Similarly, the letter from MTSC does not provide evidence or details of Mr Cotton’s employment status but merely states that his position on board a ship “is of particular problems” nor are any details provided of the terms of Mr Cotton’s contract with APM or any other third party. We would question the statement that “one can not be self employed on a vessel, being technically employed by the Captain” particularly in light of the Tribunal decision in Pete Matthews, Keith Sidwick v HMRC

[2011] UKFTT 24 (TC)

, a decision that was upheld by the Upper Tribunal. Be that as it may, absent any evidence of Mr Cotton’s employment status there is nothing before us to displace the information provided in the 2019/20 SATR. Indeed, Mr Cotton did not disavow the information provided in the 2019/20 SATR and confirmed that MTSC had acted upon his instructions and on the basis of information that he had provided. Furthermore, Mr Cotton did not provide any explanation for his belief that it was “illegal” to amend his employment status in the 2019/20 SATR to reflect his belief that he was self-employed.

[59]We were referred to two Tribunal decisions dealing with SEISS by Mr Riaz which pithily summarised the position and, it was submitted, equally apply to the facts of this appeal. In Joshua Peter Taylor v HMRC

[2022] UKFTT 00304 (TC)

at paragraph 55,

Judge Scott said:

“Bluntly, the clue is in the name, the Support Payment is only available to the self-employed.”

[60]In Thomas Merlin Ash v HMRC

[2023] UKFTT 272 (TC)

at paragraph 44,

Judge Rudolf KC said:

“…as the name of the scheme indicates, grants were only capable of being provided to those who were self-employed.”

[61]We agree with Mr Riaz. As stated above, Mr Cotton did not repudiate the information contained in his 2019/20 SATR which clearly stated that in that tax period he was employed and not self-employed. On that basis, Mr Cotton did not have any self-employed income taxable under Part 2 ITTOIA 2005 in 2019/20.

[62]We are satisfied that the Assessment is in the correct amount, competent and in time.

[63]As set out at paragraphs 32-45 above, SEISS was established to provide Support Payments to qualifying individuals who carry on a trade which had been adversely affected by the coronavirus pandemic and the restrictions put in place.

[64]Paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 16 to the FA 2020 provides that when an Officer of HMRC considers that a person has received an amount of Coronavirus Support Payment to which they are not entitled, the Officer may raise an assessment. At the time that Mr Cotton made the SEISS claims, he had not filed his 2019/20 SATR. On the basis of his 2018/19 SATR which showed that he carried on trade, he was eligible for SEISS. Once his 2019/20 SATR had been filed, HMRC identified that it did not contain any trading income per ITTOIA 2005 and Mr Cotton may have not have satisfied the SEISS eligibility criteria contained in paragraph 4.2(2) of the first SEISS Direction at paragraph 40 above.

[65]Paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 16 to FA 2020 provides that an assessment may be made at any time subject o sections 34 and 36 of the TMA 1970. Section 34 of the TMA 1970 provides that there is a time limit of four years after the end of the year of assessment, in which to raise an assessment. Here, the first amount of tax became due when the first SEISS claim was paid around 26 May 2020. The Assessment was issued on 4 April 2022 and within the statutory time limit and was accordingly, issued in time.

[66]In respect of the amount of tax charged to income tax in the Assessment, Paragraph 8(5) of Schedule 16 to the FA 2020 provides : (5) The amount of income tax chargeable under this paragraph is the amount equal to so much of the coronavirus support payment—(a) as the recipient is not entitled to, and

(b) as has not been repaid to the person who made the coronavirus support payment.

[67]It is HMRC’s case that Mr Cotton’s three claims for SEISS at paragraphs 8 to 10 above did not meet the SEISS eligibility criteria and in accordance with paragraph 8(5) above, the total of the three payments made to Mr Cotton, £8,352.00, has been charged by the Assessment. We find that the amount charged by the Assessment is correct.

[68]On the facts before us, Mr Cotton did not qualify for Support Payments and in those circumstances the legislation gives HMRC the authority to raise an assessment. HMRC did so timeously and competently. The assessment is in the correct amount. We therefore uphold the assessment.

Decision

[69]For the reasons set out above the appeal is dismissed.

Right to apply for permission to appeal

[70]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: 20th NOVEMBER 2025