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.

Unauthorised payments charge and surcharge assessments out of time in the absence of ‘carelessness’

By Mark McLaughlin, July 2020

Summary 

Unauthorised payments charge and surcharge assessments were set aside on the basis that they were out of time, as carelessness by the sponsoring employer company was not proven, but a scheme sanction charge was a valid assessment. 

Background 

A company (BFL) was both the sponsoring employer and scheme administrator of a registered pension scheme (BFPS). BFPS made a loan of £200,000 to a company (F). 

It was common ground that the loan was an unauthorised employer payment (within FA 2004, s 160(4)) and a scheme chargeable payment (within FA 2004, s 241), with the result that BFL was liable (as scheme administrator) to a scheme sanction charge (under s 239(2)) and (as sponsoring employer) to an unauthorised payments charge (under s 208(2)(c)) and an unauthorised payments surcharge (under s 209(3)(c)).  

BFL appealed against the decision of HM Revenue and

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
Tax Relief Allowable For Payments By Contribution Of Shares
By Mark McLaughlin, July 2018
Liability To Unauthorised Payment Surcharge Was Just And Reasonable
By Mark McLaughlin, June 2017
Scheme Administrator’s Liability To Scheme Sanction Charges Was Not Just And Reasonable
By Mark McLaughlin, February 2017
Residential Property Was Not ‘Taxable Property’ Of Company’s Pension Scheme
By Mark McLaughlin, March 2016