Lorenzo v Revenue and Customs (SELF EMPLOYED INCOME SUPPORT SCHEME - taxpayer accepted not entitled on claims for SEISS) [2024] UKFTT 588 (TC) (04 July 2024)

Lorenzo v Revenue and Customs (SELF EMPLOYED INCOME SUPPORT SCHEME - taxpayer accepted not entitled on claims for SEISS) [2024] UKFTT 588 (TC) (04 July 2024)

The appellant was not entitled to SEISS payments as she was not self-employed during the relevant period. Her employer, Babe Aesthetics Limited, did not meet the requirements for CJRS claims: no qualifying employment costs were incurred, no written furlough agreement existed, and the appellant continued to work to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] UKFTT 588 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Sofia Lorenzo; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
04 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Preliminary Issue Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Self Employed Income Support Scheme (seiss), Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (cjrs), COVID 19 Support Payments, HMRC Assessments, Appeals Against Tax Assessments
Tax Law Public Law Self Employed Income Support Scheme (seiss) Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (cjrs) COVID 19 Support Payments HMRC Assessments Appeals Against Tax Assessments

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sofia Lorenzo

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Preliminary Issue Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sums received by the appellant under SEISS could be treated as if claimed under CJRS by her employer
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to SEISS payments
  3. 3 Whether the employer (Babe Aesthetics Limited) would have been entitled to claim CJRS payments for the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not entitled to SEISS payments as she was not self-employed during the relevant period. Her employer, Babe Aesthetics Limited, did not meet the requirements for CJRS claims: no qualifying employment costs were incurred, no written furlough agreement existed, and the appellant continued to work to maintain business relevance. Therefore, the sums received under SEISS could not be treated as if claimed under CJRS, and the HMRC assessments must stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The assessments issued by HMRC to recover SEISS payments stand.