UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000103 - [2025] UKUT 00102 (TCC)
Fecha: 22-Ene-2025
Scheme administration employer payments
Scheme administration employer payments
Section 180 is headed “scheme administration employer payments”, and it reads:
“(1) A "scheme administration employer payment" is a payment made —
(a) by a registered pension scheme that is an occupational pension scheme, and
(b) to or in respect of a person who is or has been a sponsoring employer,
for the purposes of the administration or management of the pension scheme.
(2) But if a payment falling within subsection (1) exceeds the amount which might be expected to be paid to a person who was at arm's length, the excess is not a scheme administration employer payment.
(3) Scheme administration employer payments include in particular —
(a) the payment of wages, salaries or fees to persons engaged in administering the pension scheme, and
(b) payments made for the purchase of assets to be held for the purposes of the pension scheme.
(4) A loan to or in respect of a person who is or has been a sponsoring employer is not a scheme administration employer payment.”
The lease/licence back transactions carried out by Prisym, Formwise, Criticall and Gannon had to comply with s 180 in order not to give rise to unauthorised employer payments. The key issue before the FTT was whether the amounts paid by the SSAS for the IP transferred to them by those Employers exceeded “the amount which might be expected to be paid to a person who was at arm's length”.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The appeal grounds
- The Pension Funding Deals and the Employers
- The Legislation
- Payments by registered pension schemes
- Employer loans
- Scheme administration employer payments
- Charges
- Applications for discharge
- Factual background
- MLT and its associated companies
- The Pension Funding Deals generally
- The period up to 2011
- Prisym
- The Formwise Pension Funding Deal
- Langford
- The HMRC meetings
- Fraser
- Ballards
- The credit committee
- Criticall
- Gannon
- Overall approach to documentation
- Lack of challenge to the valuations
- The assessments
- The FTT Decision and the Grounds
- Ground 1: Domain names and websites
- The background
- Formwise
- The Formwise Contract
- The FTT Decision
- Mr Simpson’s submission relating to Mr Morris’ evidence
- Construction of the Formwise contract
- Conclusion
- The Langford Contract
- The evidence and findings of fact
- Construction of the Langford Contract
- Conclusion
- Submissions and our conclusions
- Overall conclusion on Ground 1
- Ground 2: Ballards loan
- The FTT’s approach and the finding
- Edwards v Bairstow challenge
- The other submission
- Ground 3: Gannon database
- Discussion
- Ground 4: Ballards trademark
- The first part of this Ground
- The second part of this Ground
- Our view
- Ground 5: time limits
- The assessment provisions
- The discharge provisions
- Mr Simpson’s submissions
- The Tribunal’s view
- Ground 6: Sending of applications
- Ground 7: Reasonable belief
- The statutory test
- The FTT’s assessment of the reasonable person
- A value judgment
- The FTT’s findings about all three transactions
- MLT’s case
- Ballards
- Mr Simpson’s submissions
- Criticall
- The FTT Decision
- Mr Simpson’s submissions
- Discussion
- Gannon
- Overall
- Ground 8: Just and Reasonable
- The statutory scheme
- The FTT’s Decision
- Mr Simpson’s submissions
- Conclusions