UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000103 - [2025] UKUT 00102 (TCC)
Fecha: 22-Ene-2025
The Pension Funding Deals generally
The Pension Funding Deals generally
Clifton contacted businesses which had a critical need for finance because most traditional financing sources had already been exhausted. Some business owners had already mortgaged their own homes in order to provide finance, and were desperate for other forms of fund raising [36].
Clifton held an initial conversation with the employer about funding needs [155] and suggested that the company’s pension funds could be used to raise finance [36]. Some of the employers already had a SSAS with MLT, others were advised to set one up. The trustees of each SSAS were MLT together with one or more of the directors of the employer company.
The Employers were more interested in how much financing could be raised than in the definitions of the IP which was to be used to raise the finance, or the details of how the Pension Funding Deal worked or the details of the documentation [37]. In some cases, the business would have gone under had it not obtained this finance [36]. The Pension Funding Deals generated fees for MLT and other members of the group, including Clifton [224]. Some employers who entered into Pension Funding Deals subsequently became insolvent and some SSASs wrote off amounts due to them from the related employer.
- 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