Timco Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 883 (TC)

[2026] UKFTT 00883 (TC)Case No TC 09912
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
Hearing Heard on: 11 May 2026Date Judgment date: 10 June 2026
By remote video hearing
Appeal reference: TC/2025/01867
CORONAVIRUS JOB RETENTION SCHEME – income tax assessments for amounts wrongly claimed – correct method for calculating claims – The Coronavirus Act 2020, Functions of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme) Direction– whether fixed rate employees – no – HMRC officer determined reference salary at the higher of the “average daily rate” or the “lookback” method – held, this was the correct method – no basis for Appellant’s suggested method using invoices – assessments, as varied on review, confirmed – appeal dismissed
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE RACHEL GAUKESIMON BIRD
Between
TIMCO LTDAppellantTHE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMSRespondentLucinda Long, litigator of HM Revenue and Customs’ Solicitor’s Office for Respondents for The Appellant was not representedDECISION

Introduction

[1]Timco Ltd (“Timco”) appealed against two income tax assessments issued by HMRC on 13 November 2023 to recover amounts paid under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“CJRS”). HMRC subsequently increased the assessed amounts on review. Following this variation, the amounts assessed were £17,978.88 for the tax year 2020-21, and £6,203.48 for the tax year 2021-22.[2]For the reasons we give below, we have decided to dismiss the appeal and confirm the assessments, as varied on review.

Hearing and evidence

[3]The hearing was conducted by video link on Microsoft Teams. 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 to observe the proceedings. As such, the hearing was held in public.[4]We had a 491-page document bundle which included Timco’s notice of appeal, Tribunal directions, HMRC’s statement of case, the assessments under appeal, HMRC’s review conclusion letter, real-time information (“RTI”) data relating to Timco’s two employees, correspondence between the parties, bank statements, and relevant legislation. We also had HMRC’s skeleton argument.[5]We also had a 33-page supplementary bundle containing HMRC’s “view of the matter” letter, and two previous Tribunal decisions relating to the CJRS. This bundle was sent to the Tribunal late (on 27 April 2026), but we decided it was in the interests of justice to permit it to be submitted, because the letter had already been seen by the parties, and the cases were referenced in HMRC’s skeleton arguments. These materials were therefore of assistance both to the parties and to the Tribunal.[6]The document bundle included a witness statement from the HMRC officer who had issued the assessments, Malcolm Mayer. Officer Mayer attended the hearing. His witness statement stood as his evidence in chief, and he gave further oral evidence in response to questions from the Tribunal panel. We found Officer Mayer to be a reliable and straightforward witness, and we accepted his evidence in full.

Non-attendance of the Appellant

[7]The hearing took place on 11 May 2026. On 4 May 2026, HMRC received an email from Tim Colman, who is a shareholder and director of Timco. The email stated:
“I will not be attending the hearing as I can no longer deal with the ridiculous and unjust claims. I have lung cancer currently in remission due to chemotherapy and COPD. As a result Timco Ltd ceased trading on 05/04/2026. The company had no assets and there are no monies due to it. I hope this will avoid you wasting any more time. Companies House have been advised.”
[8]We were therefore satisfied that Mr Colman had received notification of the hearing, but had decided not to attend. We noted that although he referred to his ill health, he did not say that this was the reason for his failure to attend, and he did not request an adjournment.[9]We had Timco’s notice of appeal, which set out its grounds of appeal. Timco’s core argument regarded the correct method of calculating the CJRS claims. HMRC’s document bundle included some correspondence from Mr Colman, notably an email dated 9 October 2024 in which he described the way in which Timco had calculated its CJRS claims. We therefore had an explanation from Timco as to what it considered to be the correct methodology. The Tribunal’s directions dated 12 November 2025 gave Timco the opportunity to provide any other documents it wished to rely upon, and to provide a witness statement if it wished to do so. Timco chose not to provide other documents, or a witness statement.[10]Both HMRC and the Tribunal had expended time and resource in preparing for the hearing. The Tribunal panel and HMRC’s litigator and witness attended the hearing and were ready to proceed.[11]Taking all these factors into account, we decided it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in Mr Colman’s absence. Proceeding with the hearing meant that we were able to (and did) ask detailed questions of Officer Mayer regarding HMRC’s methodology in calculating the amounts due under the assessments.[12]In deciding to proceed in Mr Colman’s absence, we were mindful of the potential detriment to him resulting from paragraph 5 of Schedule 16 to the Finance Act 2020 (“FA 2020”), under which HMRC can in some circumstances make individual company officers personally liable for CJRS payments made to insolvent companies. However, this was not sufficient to outweigh the factors in favour of proceeding.

Findings of fact

[13]At the relevant times, Timco had two employees, who were also the company’s directors and shareholders: Tim Colman and Christopher Colman. In this decision, when we refer to Mr Colman, we mean Mr Tim Colman.[14]The CJRS was announced by the Government on 20 March 2020. Between 20 March 2020 and 30 September 2021, Timco made CJRS claims for its two employees, totalling £37,107.70. HMRC paid these claims in full.[15]On 15 December 2022, HMRC wrote to Timco to advise that they were opening a check into the CJRS claims. HMRC asked for various information and documents. These were not received, and so on 31 January 2023 HMRC sent an information notice under schedule 36 of the Finance Act 2008.[16]On 29 May 2023, Mr Colman wrote to HMRC asking for an extension of time due to health issues. HMRC agreed an 8-week extension, then wrote again on 21 August 2023 asking if the company could now respond.[17]On 20 September 2023, HMRC wrote to Timco saying that as no response had been provided, they were intending to raise an assessment for the full amounts of the CJRS payments.[18]On 5 October 2023, Officer Mayer was assigned to the case.[19]On 6 October 2023, HMRC received a response from Mr Colman, saying he did not think their figures were correct.[20]On 12 October 2023, Officer Mayer wrote to Timco, stating that he had reviewed the position based on the information available to him, and now intended to assess the company for £23,800.36. He explained how he had arrived at this figure, and set out various documents and information that Timco would need to provide if it wished to challenge this decision. We describe the method he used in his calculations under “HMRC’s methodology”, below.[21]On 13 November 2023, Officer Mayer issued notices of assessment. These were in the amounts of £17,684.10 for the tax year 2020-21, and £6,116.26 for the tax year 2021-22.[22]On 14 December 2023, Officer Mayer sent a closure letter confirming the assessments and stating that he would not be charging a penalty.[23]On 2 June 2024, Mr Colman wrote to apologise for the delay, explaining that this was due to his health issues, and stating that the CJRS amounts were correctly claimed. He also disputed the amounts HMRC said were paid. HMRC accepted this letter as a late appeal.[24]On 1 October 2024, Mr Colman sent some of Timco’s bank statements covering the relevant period. On 9 October 2024, he sent an email, explaining how Timco had calculated the amounts of the claims. We describe the contents of this email under “Discussion”, below.[25]On 14 October 2024, HMRC sent their “view of the matter” letter upholding the assessments. Timco notified its appeal on 4 November 2024.[26]On 20 November 2024, HMRC wrote to Timco saying that they would undertake a review of the decision to issue the assessments.[27]On 28 March 2025, HMRC sent Timco their review conclusion letter. This varied the amounts of the assessments upwards: for the tax year 2020-21 the varied amount was £17,978.88, and for 2021-22 the varied amount was £6,203.48. This had the effect of increasing the total amount assessed from £23,800.36 to £24,182.36.[28]On 26 April 2025, Timco submitted a notice of appeal to the Tribunal.

Relevant law

[29]The CJRS, also known as the furlough scheme, was a scheme for making coronavirus support payments to employers. It was set up under the Coronavirus Act 2020. Section 76 of this Act gave the Treasury the power to direct HMRC’s functions in relation to coronavirus.[30]The first such direction, The Coronavirus Act 2020, Functions of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme) Direction (the “Direction”), was made on 15 April 2020. The Schedule to that direction set out the terms of the CJRS. References in this decision to paragraph numbers are to paragraphs of the Schedule to the Direction.[31]Paragraph 2.1 explained that the CJRS was established to provide support payments to employers on a claim made in respect of employment costs of furloughed employees.[32]HMRC have accepted in this case that Tim and Christopher Colman were furloughed employees. The dispute concerns the correct method for calculating the CJRS claims.[33]Paragraph 8 sets out what expenditure can be reimbursed in a CJRS claim. This includes an employee's gross earnings, but the amount to be paid is capped at the lower of £2,500 per month and 80% of the employee's “reference salary”, which is calculated in accordance with Paragraphs 7.1 to 7.15.[34]An employee's reference salary is calculated in one of two ways depending on whether an employee is a “fixed rate” employee. A fixed rate employee is defined at Paragraph 7.6:
“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.” (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.”
[35]Paragraph 7.7 states 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…”
[36]Paragraph 7.2 provides:
“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.” (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.”
[37]Employees who are not fixed rate employees for the purposes of the Direction are referred to by HMRC as “variable rate employees”.[38]The Treasury issued a number of updated directions in relation to CJRS as the pandemic progressed. These subsequent directions did not alter the substance of the CJRS as set out above, other than that in July 2021, the maximum claim was set by reference to 70% of an employee’s reference salary rather than 80%, and in August and September 2021, this figure was 60%. We note that this figure was 70% in September 2020 and 60% in October 2020, but Timco did not make claims for those months so this is not relevant here.[39]Amounts that have been wrongly paid under the CJRS are recovered by the imposition of a charge to income tax equal to the wrongly claimed payment.[40]Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Schedule 16 to the Finance Act 2020 provide, so far as relevant, as follows:
“Charge if person not entitled to coronavirus support payment 8 (1) A recipient of an amount of a coronavirus support payment is liable to income tax under this paragraph if the recipient is not entitled to the amount in accordance with the scheme under which the payment was made. … (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.”
Assessments of income tax chargeable under paragraph 8 “9 (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 provision about appeals and section 59B(6) makes provision about the time to pay income tax payable by virtue of an assessment).” (a) as the recipient is not entitled to, and (b) as has not been repaid to the person who made the coronavirus support payment.”[41]The Taxes Management Act 1970 (“TMA”) therefore applies to determine the procedure for an appeal against an assessment under Paragraph 9. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is set out in subsections 50(6) and (7) TMA:
“(6) If, on an appeal notified to the tribunal, the tribunal decides … (c) that the appellant is overcharged by an assessment other than a self-assessment, the assessment shall be reduced accordingly, but otherwise the assessment shall stand good (7) If, on an appeal notified to the tribunal, the tribunal decides- … (c) that the appellant is undercharged by an assessment other than a self-assessment, the assessment shall be increased accordingly, but otherwise the assessment shall stand good” … (c) that the appellant is overcharged by an assessment other than a self-assessment, the assessment shall be reduced accordingly, but otherwise the assessment shall stand good … (c) that the appellant is undercharged by an assessment other than a self-assessment, the assessment shall be increased accordingly, but otherwise the assessment shall stand good”

HMRC’s methodology

[42]We accepted Officer Mayer’s evidence regarding the way in which he calculated the coronavirus support payments to which Timco was entitled. We find that the method he used was as follows.[43]HMRC had requested detailed information from Timco on the way in which their employees’ pay was calculated, so that they could determine the company’s correct CJRS entitlement. As this was not provided, Officer Mayer based his calculations on the information available to him, namely the company’s RTI submissions.[44]He first considered whether the company’s employees, Tim and Christopher Colman, were “fixed rate employees” for the purposes of the Direction. The RTI information showed that the amount payable to both employees in the last pay period ending on or before 19 March 2020 was nil. If they were “fixed rate” employees, the effect of the Direction would have been that no support payments were due. The RTI data further showed that the amounts paid to the employees during the tax year 2019-20 varied between different pay periods.[45]Officer Mayer therefore made the assumption that the employees were “variable rate” employees.[46]He calculated each employee’s total pay in the tax year 2019-20 from the RTI data. He converted this into an average daily rate of pay.[47]He then analysed each period for which a CJRS claim had been made, and calculated what the reference salary would be for that period using the average daily rate of pay calculated in the previous step.[48]For each claim period, and for each employee separately, he determined whether there would be a better result for Timco using the “lookback” method in Paragraph 7.2(b). Under this method, the reference salary is the actual amount paid to the employee in the corresponding period in the previous year. He did this by looking at the corresponding period in the previous year and converting the amount actually paid into a daily rate, which he applied to the claim period. The result therefore took into account the fact that the two periods he was comparing might have different numbers of days.[49]Officer Mayer determined the reference salary for each claim period, and for each employee, using whichever of these two methods gave the higher result (the average daily rate, or the lookback method).[50]The periods for which Timco had submitted claims were not continuous but had gaps between them. For example, the second claim was for 2 May 2020 to 15 May 2020, and the third was for 22 May 2020 to 5 June 2020, meaning that there was no claim for the period 16 May 2020 to 21 May 2020.[51]In his calculations, Officer Mayer extended the duration of the claim periods between 20 March 2020 and 31 July 2020 so that there were no gaps, or unpaid days, between claims. This resulted in higher claim amounts, so these adjustments were in Timco’s favour.[52]The first period for which Timco had claimed began on 10 April 2020. As part of Officer Mayer’s adjustments, he extended this period back to 20 March 2020, which again was an amendment in the company’s favour.[53]Having calculated the reference salary for each claim period, he applied the relevant percentage (70% for July 2021, 60% for August and September 2021, and 80% for the other periods). These figures were subtracted from the amounts claimed by Timco to produce the amounts of income tax charged by the assessments that were sent on 13 November 2023.[54]HMRC’s reviewing officer decided there were two errors in Officer Mayer’s approach, and varied the assessments accordingly.[55]The first error was that when calculating the average daily rate for the purposes of Paragraph 7.2(a), Officer Mayer had included payments made to the employees on 25 March 2020. In the reviewing officer’s view, he should only have used the income received in the tax year 2019-20 up to and including 19 March 2020, as the start of the claim was backdated to 20 March 2020. The reviewing officer therefore recalculated the average daily rates to exclude the payments made on 25 March 2020.[56]The second error was that Officer Mayer’s calculations had combined two of the claim periods (one starting on 2 May 2020, the other starting on 22 May 2020) when, again in the reviewing officer’s view, the correct approach was to calculate each claim separately. The reviewing officer therefore recalculated the claims using what he considered to be the correct approach, resulting in an adjustment in Timco’s favour.[57]The overall effect of these two changes by the reviewing officer was to increase the total amounts charged by the two assessments from £23,800.36 to £24,182.36.

Discussion

[58]As we noted above, HMRC do not dispute that Timco’s employees were furloughed and that payments were therefore due. HMRC’s case is that the amounts claimed by Timco were too high.[59]Timco’s grounds of appeal, as set out in its notice of appeal to the Tribunal, were as follows. “We received covid payments and calculated and paid them correctly. HMRC has reviewed this twice and despite having our bank statements keeps increasing the amount they say we had. Not only are their figures wrong they ignore everything you say and are trying to put us out of business.”[60]The dispute therefore concerns the correct method for calculating the amounts of the support payments to which Timco was entitled. If we decide Timco has been overcharged by the assessments, we must reduce them, but if not, the assessments will stand.[61]We had very limited information on Timco’s view of how these amounts should have been calculated. What we do have is the email from Mr Colman sent on 9 October 2024. This includes the following:
“We claimed for 80% of what would be a normal month based on the work we would normally have undertaken and based on invoices for the previous period 12 month earlier April £5840 : 80% 4670 May £5052@ 80% £4042,92 June £4984 @ 80% £3987 July £3298 @ 80% £2639”
April £5840 : 80% 4670 May £5052@ 80% £4042,92 June £4984 @ 80% £3987 July £3298 @ 80% £2639”[62]There was no dispute as to the validity of the assessments. We note that they were sent to the address which Mr Colman gave as his address in Timco’s notice of appeal. Subsequent correspondence indicates that Mr Colman received the assessments. We find, therefore, that the assessments were correctly served on Timco.[63]We also note that the assessments were made within the applicable time limits. TMA 1970, s 34(1) permits HMRC (subject to provisions that do not apply in this case) to make an assessment to income tax at any time not more than four years after the end of the year to which the assessment relates. For the tax year 2020-21, therefore, this time limit expired on 5 April 2025, and for the tax year 2021-22, it expired on 5 April 2026. Both assessments were made on 13 November 2023, and so were in time.[64]We have considered carefully whether the assessed amounts were calculated correctly.[65]An essential step before carrying out these calculations was to establish whether Tim and Christopher Colman were fixed rate employees. We consider that Officer Mayer was correct to conclude that they were not. While neither we, nor HMRC, had copies of the relevant employment contracts, the RTI data showed that the amounts paid during the tax year 2019-20 varied between different pay periods. We note that the amounts payable to both employees in the last pay period ending on or before 19 March 2020 was nil, meaning that if they were fixed rate employees, no support payments would have been payable at all.[66]This means that the reference salary for each CJRS claim must be calculated in accordance with Paragraph 7.2 of the Direction. This requires a separate calculation for each employee, with the reference salary being the greater of the monthly or daily average paid to them in the tax year 2019-20 before the furlough began, and the amount they received in the corresponding period of 2019-20 (the lookback method).[67]This was the approach taken by Officer Mayer, as explained in his witness statement and set out in detail in his letter of 12 October 2023. For each period for which Timco had submitted a CJRS claim, and for each employee, he worked out what the reference salary would be based on the average daily rate for 2019-20, and what it would be based on the pay for the equivalent period in 2019-20. He then used whichever of these figures was the highest. We find that this was in accordance with the methodology prescribed by Paragraph 7.2 of the Direction.[68]As regards the two amendments made by the reviewing officer, we consider that these were both correct. The first amendment was to the calculation of the average daily rate, and was to exclude amounts paid to the employees after 20 March 2020, which HMRC treated as the beginning of Timco’s first claim period. This is in accordance with Paragraph 7.2(a) of the Direction, which requires the average daily rate to be calculated based on an employee’s pay in the tax year 2019-20 before the period of furlough began.[69]We had no evidence from Timco regarding the date on which its employees were in fact furloughed. Its first claim was for the period 10 April 2020 to 1 May 2020. Officer Mayer chose to backdate this claim to 20 March 2020, and also (as we found above) to increase the length of the company’s other claims up to 31 July 2020, to eliminate any gaps. The review conclusion letter states that the overall effect of lengthening the claim periods, even when taken in combination with the exclusion of the payments made on 25 March 2020, was in Timco’s favour. As we had no evidence to the contrary, we accept that the reviewing officer was correct in this respect.[70]This means that although it was HMRC’s choice to backdate the claims to 20 March 2020, and the exclusion of the payments to employees on 25 March 2020 followed from that choice, overall the decision to backdate was in Timco’s favour. Having decided to begin the claims from 20 March 2020, HMRC were correct (under Paragraph 7.2(a)) to exclude payments to employees after that date when calculating the average daily rate of pay.[71]The second amendment was to calculate the claims for the periods starting on 2 May 2020 and 22 May 2020 separately, rather than to combine them as Officer Mayer had done. This question was considered in Jama Academy Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 302 (TC), where the Tribunal agreed with HMRC that the period in respect of which each claim is made must be looked at separately, and said at [67]:
“In our view this conclusion follows naturally from the wording of paragraph 5 of the First Direction which is what confers on an employer the entitlement to make “a claim”
. This must refer to each separate claim that is submitted. There is no requirement either in paragraph 5 or in paragraph 7 of the First Direction that the reference salary in respect of each claim must be calculated in the same way.”[72]We agree, and note again that this second amendment was in Timco’s favour.[73]Mr Colman’s email of 9 October 2024, from which we quoted above, shows that Timco calculated its CJRS claims by taking 80% of the amounts invoiced in the corresponding periods one year earlier. We can find no basis for calculating CJRS claims using invoices: as set out above, the correct approach is to base the calculation on the pay of the company’s employees. While we did not have an opportunity to hear from Mr Colman, the natural conclusion is that the invoice method used by Timco was based on a misunderstanding.[74]We therefore accept HMRC’s calculations, as varied on review.[75]We can also find no basis for the submission that Timco did not receive the amounts that HMRC say that it received, nor that HMRC have changed their position regarding these amounts. Timco’s bank statements were included in the hearing bundle and showed, for example, the company receiving £4,670.28 on 28 April 2020, and £4,024.92 on 13 May 2020. These figures match the top two entries under “amounts claimed” in Officer Mayer’s calculations, sent with his letter dated 12 October 2023.[76]For Timco to succeed with this submission, it would need to set out the amounts that it says were paid, show that these were different from HMRC’s figures, and support this with evidence. It has not done so, and so we reject this submission.

Decision

[77]For all the reasons we have given, we dismiss the appeal and confirm the assessments, as varied on review to a total amount of £24,182.36.[78]HMRC have requested that rather than simply confirming the assessments as varied on review, we should exercise our power under TMA 1970, s 50(7) to increase the assessments from the total of £23,800.36 as originally calculated by Officer Mayer, to the total of £24,182.36 as determined by HMRC’s reviewing officer. If it is necessary for us to exercise this power, we do so. The outcome is the same: the varied assessments are confirmed.[79]We would add that there is no suggestion that Timco deliberately claimed more money than it was entitled to. The CJRS scheme was entirely new and it is not surprising that mistakes were made. Against this background, HMRC decided not to charge Timco a penalty. However, Parliament has provided that amounts that were wrongly claimed must be repaid.The Tribunal’s task is to decide whether the assessments are excessive. We find that Timco has not been overcharged and so the assessments (as varied) must stand.

Right to apply for permission to appeal

[80]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: 10 June 2026