[2025] UKUT 00278 (TCC)

2008/09 – HMRC issued a Regulation 80 determination in the sum of £80,000 for “All employees in receipt of payments from the Employee Benefit Trust”. The PAYE settlement figure for that year was £127,999.40, referencing contributions for the benefit of Mr O’Connor, the sole director of the company, under the Montpelier BBT. The Regulation 80 determination figure was capable of being uplifted, on the basis set out above, to the PAYE settlement figure.

2009/10 – HMRC issued a Regulation 80 determination in the sum of £40,000 for “All employees receiving payments from the business benefit trust”. There were two PAYE settlement sums for that year, but Fluid Scotland only claims repayment in relation to one of those settlements, which was for £75,561 in relation to contributions for the benefit of Mr O’Connor under the Montpelier BBT. The Regulation 80 determination was capable of being uplifted, on the basis set out above, to cover that sum.

2010/11 – HMRC issued a Regulation 80 determination in the sum of £255,868 for “Peter Sidney O’Connor”. The PAYE settlement figure for that year was £277,923, referencing contributions for the benefit of Mr O’Connor under an EFRBS. The Regulation 80 figure was capable of being uplifted, on the basis set out above, to the PAYE settlement figure.

2011/12 – HMRC issued a Regulation 80 determination for the sum of £478,000 for “earnings of all employees arising from transactions related to [EFRBS scheme 650]”. The PAYE settlement figure for that year was £920,841.81, of which £481,474.50related to a £1m contribution for the benefit of Mr O’Connor in September 2011 under EFRBS scheme 650. The Regulation 80 determination figure was capable of being uplifted, on the basis set out above, to the latter figure. The remainder of the PAYE settlement sum related to a further £1m contribution for the benefit of Mr O’Connor in March 2012 under EFRBS scheme 549. HMRC accepted that it had not issued a Regulation 80 determination in relation to that scheme (see §40 above), and its basis for refusal of repayment in relation to that scheme was not therefore the power to recover condition, but rather the reasonable disclosure condition. This is considered further below.