Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

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

Fecha: 22-Ene-2025

Langford

Langford

51.

Langford’s business activity was the building and preparation of racing car engines. Mr Langford had two meetings with Clifton, following which he transferred the company’s pension savings to a SSAS, the Performance Engineering Pension Scheme, of which he and MLT were the trustees.

52.

Clifton arranged for a valuation to be carried out by Pinstripe Accountancy Ltd (“Pinstripe”), which (like the other accountancy firms used at this time) was not an expert in valuing IP [181]. The valuation was dated 30 March 2011. Based on Langford’s “average after-tax earnings”, Pinstripe said the valuation of its “domain name and associated website” was “considered to be £78,000”.

53.

On the following day, Langford:

(1)

assigned to its SSAS an unregistered trademark which had been valued at £50,000, albeit this was not part of the Pension Funding Deal considered by the FTT, see [61] and [121]; and

(2)

entered into a loan agreement with its SSAS under which it received a loan of £69,000 secured on different IP [122]. The FTT’s findings as to the nature of that IP is again considered under Ground 1.

54.

On the same date, the value of the assets held within the SSAS was £139,000 including the unregistered trademark, and £89,477 without the trade mark [122].