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

As set out earlier in this decision, on 27 September 2012, Ballards entered into an agreement with its SSAS for the Second Loan of £48,956, secured by its trademark which had been valued by Mr Kelly of Seabright at £73,000. HMRC assessed the £48,956 as an unauthorised payment, on the basis that the related loan was not secured by an asset of adequate value.

At the FTT, the Appellants relied on their expert’s valuation of £64,500 [105], calculated on an “income approach” [109], while Mr Ballard also put forward an alterative valuation of £60,500 on a costs approach [107]. The FTT summarised the evidence and discussed the valuations before concluding at [119]:

“The onus of proof is on the Appellant to demonstrate that HMRC’s original valuation is incorrect. We have concluded that the Appellant has not displaced the burden of proof to overturn HMRC’s assessment in this case, either on the basis of their original approach (the Income Approach) or, alternatively on a Costs Approach.”

Ground 4 reads:

“The Tribunal erred in law in relation to its conclusion on the valuation of the Ballards trademark in two respects. Firstly, in assuming that, if selling its trademark to a person who wanted to compete in the same geographical market as Ballards, Ballards would insist on a non-compete clause preventing the purchaser from competing in that market. Secondly, in rejecting Mr Ballard’s evidence as regards the costs Ballards would have to incur to create and apply a new trademark and requiring documentary evidence to vouch what were, on their face, reasonable estimates, the appellant contends that the Tribunal was setting too high a standard, and thereby erred in law.”