Judgment summary
This decision concerns an application made by L W Joinery and Flooring Ltd ("the Company") to file a supplementary note after the hearing of its substantive appeal against income tax assessments relating to grants received under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) (2).
The substantive appeal, heard on 10 August 2026, concerned the correct reference salary for Mr Lance Williams, a fixed rate employee, for CJRS purposes. The Company had claimed using a reference salary of £2,996 per month, asserting his salary had increased in February 2020, while HMRC contended the correct figure was £512 per month (3).
Following the hearing, the Company applied on 12 August 2026 to file a supplementary note to clarify technical aspects of HMRC's electronic evidence, referred to as the HMRC RTI records, which had been disclosed late (4, 5, 7). HMRC objected on 12 August 2026, both on procedural grounds and on the basis that the application was misconceived (8).
The Tribunal determined the application on the papers on 25 August 2026 without a hearing, applying rule 5 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009/273 and the overriding objective (9, 10). It refused the application.
Background
On 10 August 2026, the Tribunal heard the Company's appeal against assessments to income tax issued by HMRC in respect of CJRS grants (2). The key issue was the amount of Mr Lance Williams' reference salary, as he was a fixed rate employee whose reference salary is the amount payable in the latest salary period ending on or before 19 March 2020 (3).
The Company made CJRS claims using a monthly reference salary of £2,996, on the basis that Mr Williams' salary had increased in February 2020. HMRC contended that his salary had not increased, and that the correct reference salary was £512 per month (3).
HMRC had been directed to provide copies of documents not already provided to the Company by 16 April 2026. This was not done, although the HMRC RTI records were included on the list of documents provided on that date. The HMRC RTI records were included in the bundle of documents shared on 14 May 2026 (7).
Core dispute
The Company applied to file a supplementary note after the substantive hearing, stating its purpose was to clarify certain technical aspects of HMRC's electronic evidence, particularly the XML RCAT material referred to as the HMRC RTI records (4). The Company submitted that these records were disclosed for the first time within the hearing bundle, were highly technical, and that it had limited time to prepare its case (5). It argued a short supplementary note would assist the Tribunal's fact-finding and promote fairness given the late disclosure (6).
HMRC objected on two broad grounds. First, that further submissions after the hearing were outside the ordinary conduct of proceedings, that the Company had 116 days between receiving the list of documents and the hearing, and that the Company had already made submissions about the data in its skeleton argument, contradicting its claim of insufficient time. HMRC also argued it would suffer prejudice and that allowing the note would undermine procedural timetables (8).
Second, HMRC argued the application was misconceived because the HMRC RTI records only show what the Company submitted to HMRC and merely provide evidentiary support for HMRC's long-standing position, including as set out in its statement of case dated 3 December 2025 (8).
Court findings
The Tribunal noted that under rule 5 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009/273, it may regulate its own procedure and give directions regarding the provision of documents, information or submissions, subject to the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly (9, 10). It found that the Upper Tribunal decision in William Martland v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs ([2018] UKUT 0178 (TCC)) was not relevant, treating this as a case management decision under rule 5 (11).
The Tribunal accepted the Company had limited opportunity before the hearing to analyse the HMRC RTI records, but was not satisfied that permitting further written submissions was necessary for fairness, since it had been able to understand the records, the Company's criticisms of them, and the parties' submissions concerning them (12).
The Tribunal's conclusion in the substantive decision was that the Company had not discharged the burden of proving that a salary of £2,996 was payable in the relevant salary period. This conclusion was reached considering all the evidence cumulatively, including witness evidence, payslips, bank statements and the RTI records, and identifying a lack of contemporaneous documentary evidence and unexplained inconsistencies between the sources (13).
The Tribunal found that the proposed supplementary note, directed principally to the interpretation and interaction of HMRC's records, did not identify any further contemporaneous evidence capable of addressing the evidential deficiencies identified in the substantive decision. The Company had been professionally represented, had a full opportunity to challenge HMRC's evidence, and was aware throughout that it bore the burden of proof (14, 15). The Tribunal also noted that although no new evidence was proposed, the note would give rise to a further round of submissions on matters already explored at the hearing (16).
Outcome
Taking all the circumstances into account and having regard to the overriding objective, the Tribunal declined to permit the filing of a supplementary note (17). The application was refused (18). Any party dissatisfied with the decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, with any application required within 56 days of the decision being sent (19).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Company should be permitted to file a supplementary note after the substantive hearing had concluded.
- Whether late disclosure of HMRC's electronic RTI records justified allowing further written submissions in the interests of fairness.
- Whether permitting the supplementary note would materially assist the Tribunal in determining the appeal, given the evidential deficiencies already identified.
- Whether the application for a supplementary note was properly a case management matter under rule 5 rather than engaging the Martland test.
- Whether the Company had discharged the burden of proving the correct reference salary of £2,996 for CJRS purposes, in light of inconsistencies in the evidence.