![UT/2024/000093 - [2025] UKUT 00206 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
background and the issue in this appeal
background and the issue in this appeal
References below in the form [ ] are to paragraphs of the Decision.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. The assessments made by HMRC against Mr Trachtenberg were under sections 208 and 209 FA 2004 in respect of “unauthorised payments” made by his pension scheme pursuant to arrangements to enable him to use funds from his pension scheme to repay certain loans. In the appeal against the assessments to the FTT, there were three grounds of appeal, summarised at [16]-[17] as follows:
There are three grounds of appeal raised by Mr Trachtenberg:
that s29 TMA 1970 cannot be used to recover amounts which are chargeable to tax under s208 and s209 Finance Act (FA) 2004;
if s29 TMA 1970 can so be used, whether HMRC have shown that Mr Trachtenberg acted deliberately in failing to return the chargeable amounts in his self-assessments returns (as required by s29(4) TMA 1970);
whether s268 FA 2004 applies to remove the surcharge for the 2007 year.
It was agreed that the loans to Mr Bishop and Ms Doyle were unauthorised payments made to Mr Trachtenberg by his pension scheme.
The FTT found in favour of HMRC and against Mr Trachtenberg on all three grounds. Mr Trachtenberg does not appeal against the decisions in respect of grounds (b) and (c), so we need say no more about them. The only issue in this appeal is ground (a), which is whether section 29 TMA 1970 extends to an assessment to income tax arising under section 208 and under section 209. If the appeal were to succeed on that single ground, then the result would be that HMRC’s assessments were invalidly raised.