SEISS claim, 2 sources, one source has ceased

[bd6759]

As much as I too value the advice given by maths, I could only agree with his analysis of conditions c) and d) if they referred to “the trade” rather than “a trade”.

There is no requirement that the affected trade was carried on in earlier years, all that is required is that a trade has been affected, and if so the quantification is based on the returned profits of any trade carried on in earlier years.

The difference between “a” and “the” is key (Lord Blanesburgh in Ricketts v Colqhoun).

Whether it is morally correct is a different argument. I am inclined to agree that the current scenario goes beyond the spirit of the help.