![UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000103 - [2025] UKUT 00102 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000103 - [2025] UKUT 00102 (TCC)
Fecha: 22-Ene-2025
The HMRC meetings
The HMRC meetings
HMRC became concerned about the Penson Funding Deals, and meetings were held in May and July 2011 [193]. As a result of HMRC’s criticisms [193], MLT recognised that it needed a system which provided “more robust” valuations [166], and took the following steps:
It recruited Mr Manchester [205], who had IP expertise [177];
Mr Manchester had the initial review meeting with employers, instead of Clifton holding this meeting[155];
the valuation experts were contracted by MLA rather than Clifton [177]; and
firms of valuers with IP expertise were added to MLA’s valuation panel [158]. These included Coller IP Management Ltd (“Coller”) and Metis Partners (“Metis”) [167]. However, until December 2012 some of the original accountant valuers continued to be used [158].
- 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