COMPLIANCE
Director’s social media posts invalidate CJRS claim
Justine Riccomini MSc FFTA AIPA Chartered MCIPD ChFCIPP, head of taxation, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) , discusses how HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) won a tax tribunal centred on a coronavirus job retention scheme (CJRS) claim
Social work Key to the success or failure of the claim was whether what the director in question had been doing represented ‘work’ or ‘statutory duties’, and how often these activities had happened. “It’s essential that agents continue to have conversations with their clients about furlough claims, which are investigated by HM Revenue and Customs on an ongoing basis” The company was a business which hosted children’s events and clubs, as well as parent and baby sessions. The director continued to post information on to the company’s main Facebook page during the furlough period, which included advertising, promotion of other company Facebook pages and commentary on some of the work the company had undertaken during lockdown. It was clear the social media activity during lockdown was reduced significantly from some 15 hours a week prior to lockdown, to around five minutes per month during lockdown – however, the type of work undertaken was enough to allow HMRC to conclude that the strict CJRS rules had been breached.
Timing Timing of the posts was crucial. In this case, the time lag between posts didn’t leave a clear period of 21 days in which the director had ceased all work during the initial furlough period of March to June 2020 inclusive. Due to this, the director was also automatically rendered ineligible to claim furlough for the subsequent so- called ‘flexible furlough scheme’ period of July to October 2020 inclusive. FTT findings The FTT found that the director had been carrying out work which didn’t amount to ‘statutory duties’ while claiming furlough throughout the period between 23 April 2020 and 18 December 2020 and the payments, totalling £3,449, were denied. It was enough that one single piece of work was sufficient to derail the claim, whether that work succeeded in generating income or not. Conclusion It’s essential that agents continue to have conversations with their clients about furlough claims, which are investigated by HMRC on an ongoing basis, and take proactive action where errors are found to have arisen. Such misdemeanours can cause HMRC to increase a business’s tax risk rating, which can result in increased levels of scrutiny of that business by HMRC over several years, until it’s considered that the risk has diminished to a satisfactory level. n Links corner Glo-Ball Group Limited v HMRC: https:// ow.ly/ycfw50Plyni Companies Act (2006): https:// ow.ly/377A50PlA2O.
D uring the height of the coronavirus pandemic, businesses were trying to cope with the loss of business and adjust to new circumstances, while also attempting to keep up with many different iterations of the CJRS Treasury Directions. Statutory duties One example of how a company got it wrong and had a claim turned down was recently highlighted in the case of Glo-Ball Group Limited v HMRC. The company appealed to the FTT when HMRC turned down a claim for furlough in respect of one of the directors, who had published a small number of posts on the company’s Facebook page during the furlough period. The appeal followed a statutory review of the case findings, as well as an unsuccessful alternative dispute resolution process. HMRC considered that regardless of the number of posts, the content being posted constituted an act (or acts) of work which didn’t amount to ‘statutory duties’. This was the only work directors of incorporated business were permitted to perform. ‘Statutory duties’ are defined in Sections 171-177 of the Companies Act 2006 and include signing time-critical legal documents Main points l the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) handed down a decision in favour of HMRC, which upheld its decision to deny a CJRS claim l a director had posted on social media while on furlough l this activity was deemed to constitute work, and the claim was disallowed.
and finalising accounts to submit to Companies House, for example.
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | September 2023 | Issue 93 22
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker