UK Government Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

HM Revenue and Customs

P-002944 · Statement · Decision date: 26 September 2024 · View HM Revenue & Customs scorecard
Business and regulation Tax digitalisation programme delivery
Complaint (AI summary)
Mr A complained HMRC wouldn't accept his 2019-2020 tax return was filed on January 31, 2021, not March 5, which caused him to miss SEISS grants.
Outcome (AI summary)
The ombudsman found no indication that HMRC should have accepted Mr A's tax return was filed on the earlier date.

Full decision details

The Complaint

3. Mr A complains that HMRC will not accept he submitted his 2019-2020 tax return on 31 January 2021 rather than 5 March 2021. He says he has shown that his accountant first submitted the tax return on the earlier date.

4. He says this means he was unable to access the fourth and fifth Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) grants in April and July 2021. He said his business has experienced an unnecessarily prolonged recovery from the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

5. Mr A would like HMRC to reconsider amending the date on the tax return and paying or otherwise compensating him for the value of the missed SEISS grants.

Background

6. In January 2021, Mr A’s accountant finalised his 2019-2020 tax return and Mr A understood that it was submitted on 31 January.

7. On 5 March 2021, HMRC informed Mr A he would receive a penalty for failing to submit his 2020-2021 tax return before the deadline of 31 January 2021. Mr A contacted his accountant the same day, who then submitted the return. He appealed the late filing penalty, and in June 2021 HMRC decided to accept his appeal and cancelled the penalty. However, as it did not amend the submission date for his tax return, he missed the 2 March filing deadline to qualify for SEISS4 and SEISS5.

8. Mr A asked HMRC to review each decision not to award the grants. He said his accountant provided evidence which it said showed the tax return had been submitted well before the SEISS deadline. In July and September respectively, HMRC informed Mr A it did not accept the tax return was submitted before the deadline of 31 January 2021 and it would not amend its decision about SEISS4 and SEISS5. Over the next year he pursued this further with HMRC’s technical support department, without success.

9. In January 2023 Mr A complained to HMRC that it caused his tax return to be registered late, which in turn led to him missing out on the two grants. HMRC did not uphold his complaint.

Findings

12. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indication that HMRC did not follow the relevant guidance when it declined to pay the fourth and fifth SEISS grants.

13. Mr A says he took the necessary steps to submit his 2019-2020 tax return by the 31 January 2021. His accountant told him the only reason HMRC did not receive it on time was because an HMRC system error meant that they received confirmation the tax return was submitted, but HMRC did not log the tax return.

14. He adds that HMRC appears to have accepted fault as it waived the late filing penalty it sent him on 5 March 2021, but it insisted he did not file on time when it considered his SEISS grant applications.

15. HMRC said that it had no evidence the tax return was submitted until 5 March 2021. This was slightly after the 2 March filing deadline, for accessing the SEISS grants and therefore Mr A did not qualify for the grants.

16. Our Principles of good administration say that all public bodies must comply with the law and have regard for the rights of those concerned. They should act according to their statutory powers and duties and any other rules governing the service they provide. They should follow their own policy and procedural guidance, whether published or internal. We considered whether HMRC appeared to have acted in line with the relevant policy and guidance.

17. HMRC guidance for the fourth and fifth SEISS grants explains that one of the conditions to receive either or both of these grants is that the applicant must have filed their 2019-2020 by 2 March 2021. This is due to concerns about the potential for fraudulent claims. HMRC also has internal guidance which sets out strictly limited circumstances in which it can use discretion to agree to a grant even if the applicant did not meet all of the conditions, including when HMRC is at fault.

18. Mr A believes that because HMRC waived his late filing penalty, it accepted he had filed his tax return by 31 January 2021. We have seen that HMRC considered the appeal against the late filing penalty which Mr A’s accountant submitted on his behalf in June 2021. Unlike the SEISS guidance, rules relating to late filing of tax returns give HMRC broad discretion to cancel such penalties, as penalties are intended to encourage taxpayers to comply with their obligations. Information available online at that time said that:‘You can appeal against some penalties if you have a reasonable excuse, for example for your return or payment being late… A reasonable excuse is something that stopped you meeting a tax obligation that you took reasonable care to meet’.

19. HMRC waived the late filing penalty in Mr A’s case, although this does not necessarily mean that it accepted he or his accountant had submitted the tax return on 31 January. It could also mean it accepted Mr A had made some effort to submit the tax return, even if he did not do so.

20. We have considered also, Mr A’s contention that he has evidence that he submitted his tax return before 31 January 2021. Mr A shared screenshots he provided HMRC with which showed exchanges with his accountant. These show activity in January 2021, including one of an ‘IR Mark’ reference number HMRC generated on 31 January in relation to his tax return.

21. An IR Mark is a 33 digit reference number which confirms that a tax return has been provisionally completed and is ready for submission to HMRC. This enables an accountant and taxpayer to agree the figures on the return, before it is fully submitted to HMRC. If the tax return is changed again before it is submitted, a new IR Mark is generated. This means protects a taxpayer from the tax return being amended without their knowledge. When the tax return is fully submitted the accountant or taxpayer receives a 32 digit ‘Correlation ID’. An IR Mark is not enough to say that a tax return has been submitted, a Correlation ID is needed for this. Mr A was likely unaware of the difference between an IR Mark and a Correlation ID at the time of these events.

22. There is no Correlation ID in the evidence which Mr A sent to HMRC. We note, however, there is a discrepancy in the evidence Mr A sent us. His screenshot of the IR Mark is only 32 digits long, not 33 digits. In a call Mr A made to HMRC on 17 June 2021, HMRC noted the reference as a 33 digit one, and other calls refer to an ‘IR mark’. The 33 digit number is exactly the same as 32 digit one, with an additional digit at the end. While it is not clear what the reason for this discrepancy is, HMRC consider only an IR Mark has been provided. An IR Mark is not evidence that the tax return was submitted. A missing Correlation ID would have alerted the accountant that there was a problem with the submission of Mr A’s tax return.

23. In the absence of evidence of a Correlation ID, we accept HMRC’s view that Mr A’s accountant did not successfully submit his tax return until 5 March 2021. Therefore, HMRC’s position is he did not meet the rules for the fourth and fifth grants for SEISS, which require a tax return to be submitted by 2 March 2021. This appears to be in line with our Principles, which say decision making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones and balance the evidence appropriately.

24. Mr A also does not appear to meet the criteria set out in the SEISS discretion guidance. This is because we saw no indication he demonstrated that HMRC made an error. This means HMRC’s decision not to pay the SEISS grants appears to be reasonable.

25. Mr A was understandably confident that his tax return was submitted in time, and we recognise that missing out on these two SEISS grants had a significant financial impact on his livelihood.

26. For the reasons mentioned above we did not see any indication HMRC did anything wrong here and this means we have decided not to take any further action on his concerns. We hope he finds these explanations helpful.

Our Decision

1. We have carefully considered Mr A complaint about HMRC. We have seen no indication that HMRC should have accepted Mr A’s tax return was filed on 31 January 2021.

2. We recognise that Mr A had good reason to believe his tax return was filed on time by his accountant. We are sorry to learn that because of the late filing, he has missed out on two grants intended to mitigate the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his business.

Other Decisions About HM Revenue and Customs

P-005012 · 10 Mar 2026
Mr Q complains that HMRC has not provided an appropriate remedy to recognise its failure to process a Corporation Tax …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-005001 · 6 Mar 2026
Mr Wilson complains that HMRC failed to provide sufficient financial remedy to address the impacts on him of its delays …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004997 · 6 Mar 2026
Mr A complains that in December 2022, HMRC refunded his tax repayment of £549.48 for the 2019-20 and 2021-22 tax …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004956 · 27 Feb 2026
Mr D complains on behalf of himself and Mr C that HMRC failed to act on the information it had, …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-004955 · 27 Feb 2026
Mr A complains that HMRC failed to act on information provided to it and gave him incorrect information and issued …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
View all decisions for this organisation →