CJRS:Zoe Shisha Events Ltd v HMRC[2023] UKFTT 398 (TC) (5 April 2023) is another in what is now a series of cases on the coronavirus job retention scheme – more commonly know as the furlough scheme under which HMRC paid 80% of the wages of a person who was furloughed. In order to prevent people artificially increasing wages to obtain higher furlough payments any pay increases after the cut-off date of 19 March were ignored. Here the company’s PAYE returns had shown that its owner/manager was being paid £600 per month but the furlough claim was based on a salary of £3 000 per month. She was receiving more than £600 from the company each month but there was no evidence that this was salary – in fact her accountant had clearly advised her that anything in excess of £600 should be treated as...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
CJRS:Zoe Shisha Events Ltd v HMRC[2023] UKFTT 398 (TC) (5 April 2023) is another in what is now a series of cases on the coronavirus job retention scheme – more commonly know as the furlough scheme under which HMRC paid 80% of the wages of a person who was furloughed. In order to prevent people artificially increasing wages to obtain higher furlough payments any pay increases after the cut-off date of 19 March were ignored. Here the company’s PAYE returns had shown that its owner/manager was being paid £600 per month but the furlough claim was based on a salary of £3 000 per month. She was receiving more than £600 from the company each month but there was no evidence that this was salary – in fact her accountant had clearly advised her that anything in excess of £600 should be treated as...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
