Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

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

Fecha: 22-Ene-2025

The FTT’s approach and the finding

The FTT’s approach and the finding

155.

The FTT set out at [55] the evidence which it had considered. This included the contract for the Second Loan; the schedule of loan repayments for both Loans; Mr Ballard’s written and oral evidence, and the Ballard’s bank account. The FTT also took into account Mr Simpson’s submissions, see [58].

156.

Having considered and weighed the evidence, and taken into account the submissions, the FTT found that the First Loan was no longer “extant” at the time of the Second Loan, and it had been replaced with Second Loan.

157.

Before us, Mr Simpson submitted that the amount of the unauthorised payment was limited to £24,000 because:

(1)

For an unauthorised payment to arise, there must be a “payment”, see s 160 and s 161.

(2)

Ballards had already received a “payment” of the First Loan, and when the Second Loan was entered into, a further sum was paid out of the SSAS to top up the amount of the First Loan, so at the time of the Second Loan, the amount of the “payment” was the top-up amount.

(3)

The result of the FTT’s conclusion would mean that the First Loan would be an unauthorised payment of £32,000 (albeit that HMRC had not made an assessment), and the Second Loan would constitute a further unauthorised payment of £48,956, despite the employer only having received a much lower sum.