This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more about cookies on this website and how to delete cookies, see our privacy notice.

Appeals Against Unauthorised Payments Surcharges Allowed

By Mark McLaughlin, January 2017
Summary

The appellant’s appeals against unauthorised payments surcharges (under FA 2004, s 209) were allowed, but his appeals against the unauthorised payments charges (under FA 2004, s 208) were dismissed.

Background

The appellant was a financial adviser. He intended to transfer all of his existing pension arrangements with Pearl Assurance and Scottish Life to a self-invested personal pension plan (SIPP) with TD Direct Investing. He arranged for £138,606.34 (i.e. the aggregate of the amounts of £21,127 and £117,479.34 received by him from Pearl Assurance and Scottish Life respectively in April 2010 and March 2010) to be transferred. The appellant attempted to handle the transfer himself.

The payments from Pearl Assurance and Scottish Life were deposited in a new business bank account opened by the appellant in March 2010. He originally
Subscribe to the McLaughlin’s Tax Case Library to get instant access
to the Tax Case Library.
14 day free trial , 90 day money back guarantee
Subscribe

Related or similar articles

Information about pension scheme automatic enrolment was inaccurate and opt-out notice was valid
By Mark McLaughlin, June 2022
Unauthorised payments charge and surcharge assessments out of time in the absence of ‘carelessness’
By Mark McLaughlin, July 2020
Transfer of funds from one pension scheme to another was a ‘payment’
By Mark McLaughlin, June 2020
Reasonable Excuse Existed For Late Submission Of An Application For Enhanced Protection
By Mark McLaughlin, August 2017
Scheme Administrator’s Liability To Scheme Sanction Charges Was Not Just And Reasonable
By Mark McLaughlin, February 2017