A security services firm has failed in a High Court challenge over a decision that it should repay some €2.2 million it received from Revenue under the Covid pandemic wages subsidy scheme.
Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy rejected an appeal brought by Fire Safety Security Advantage Ltd (FSSA), formerly Superior Group Ireland Ltd, over Revenue’s decision that the full €2.2 million should be repaid because the company had not abided by the terms of the scheme and had incorrectly been paid the subsidies.
The Employment Wages Subsidy Scheme was introduced by the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020.
It provided qualifying employers with a flat-rate subsidy based on the numbers of eligible employees on its payroll.
Ancient remains discovered in Co Derry bog ‘likely to belong to young woman’ who died violently
Garda fitness requirements relaxed as force struggles to increase numbers
They seek him here. They seek him there. The Wexford Pimpernel James Browne
House prices could increase due to relaxation of garden-room planning rules, say experts
Between July 2020 and August 2021, FSSA received some €2,244,179 in subsidies.
In July 2022, Revenue raised 14 separate assessments which, taken together, meant the full subsidy had to be repaid.
FSSA appealed the assessments to the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) which in December 2023 found Revenue was correct.
The company then asked the High Court to determine whether the TAC had misapplied the provisions of the 2020 emergency measures law.
Mr Justice Mulcahy found the TAC had not erred in its interpretation of the law.
He said the subsidy scheme operated on the basis of, in effect, self-certification, with advice to employers that they should retain their evidence/basis for entering the scheme by anticipating that they would suffer a reduction in turnover due to Covid-19.
When appealing the assessments, FSSA did not seek to rely on any such evidence, he said. Rather, it relied on evidence of its actual reduction in turnover which, in fact, didn’t show a reduction of a required 30 per cent in turnover for any of the specified periods, he said.
Even if that evidence was admissible as a basis to prove entitlement to a subsidy, it did not show that the qualifying criteria were met, he said.
Therefore, the TAC was correct in rejecting the appeal and there was nothing in the emergency measures Act (under section 28B.11) which prevented a conclusion that none of the subsidies received should have been paid and must be refunded, he said.
