Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000103 - [2025] UKUT 00102 (TCC)

Fecha: 22-Ene-2025

Gannon

Gannon

251.

As set out at §78ff, the Pension Funding Deal involved three types of IP: a “trademark” consisting of a headshot of Mr Gannon and a strap line with no reference to Gannon; a database of Mr Gannon’s clients, and a website and domain name. Those assets were valued as being worth a total of £22,500 and the valuation was carried out by Mr Robinson of Metis, who was experienced in valuing IP.

252.

The FTT accepted at [205] that MLT had improved its processes before the Gannon transaction, including by recruiting Mr Manchester. However, on the basis of its findings of fact, the FTT went on to decide that MLT did not meet the reasonable belief test in relation to the Gannon transaction. Those findings have already been set out at §81 but are repeated here for ease of reference. They were that no-one at MLA had:

(1)

looked at the Gannon database;

(2)

looked critically at the Metis valuation of a website/trademark which “was clearly tailored specifically to Mr Gannon and therefore unlikely to be valuable to anyone but him”;

(3)

critically evaluated the financial inputs used by Metis;

(4)

checked the precise terms of the documentation signed by Gannon, including the impact of entering into a general debenture on the same date as the sale and leaseback over the IP in this Pension Funding Deal; or

(5)

checked whether the Gannon trademark was actually registered, despite the impact this had on its value.

253.

None of Mr Simpson’s submissions focused on the Gannon transaction, other than that he said it was reasonable for MLT to rely on the valuation provided by Mr Robinson.

254.

However, as with Ballards and Criticall, the FTT considered a range of factors in making its evaluative judgment. Its conclusion was plainly within the range of reasonable conclusions and there is no error of law.