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

Grounds 1-4 were that the FTT had made errors of law when deciding that certain transactions carried out by five of the Employers had given rise to unauthorised payments. Because scheme sanction charges are calculated based on unauthorised payments, success on one or more of these Grounds would reduce MLT’s scheme sanction charges.

Ground 5 was that the FTT had wrongly construed the statutory time limit within which a scheme administrator is required to apply for relief from the scheme sanction charge, and Ground 6 was that the FTT made an error of law when it decided MLT had served applications to be discharged from the scheme sanction charges relating to transactions carried out by three of the Employers, after the statutory time limit.

Grounds 7 and 8 were that the FTT made errors of law when it decided MLT did not meet either of the statutory tests in s 268(7). The FTT instead found that MLT did not “reasonably believe that the unauthorised payment was not a scheme chargeable payment” and that it was “just and reasonable” for it to be subject to the scheme sanction charges. The FTT therefore agreed with HMRC that MLT was not discharged from liability to those charges.