Mattioli Woods Plc (As scheme administrator for the Lanson SIPP & Ors) v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 9 June 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 179 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This case concerned whether the mere creation or assumption of a legally enforceable debt (an IOU) by a pension scheme member counts as a "contribution paid" under s188 FA 2004 for relief-at-source purposes. The Tribunal held that the mere assumption/creation of a debt is not a "contribution paid"; an IOU is an asset of the scheme equivalent to a creditor claim and does not amount to the member parting with money or an asset qualifying for relief until the debt is satisfied. The appeals on the agreed Preliminary Issue were dismissed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The Tribunal’s ratio is that "contributions paid" requires the taxpayer actually to part with money or an asset meeting the statutory criteria; the bare creation or assumption of a legally enforceable debt (an IOU), even if it is an asset of the scheme, does not satisfy s188 FA 2004 and so does not qualify for relief-at-source unless and until the debt is actually satisfied in a manner that meets the statutory provisions.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal noted but did not rely on points including that HMRC internal manuals are not binding on statutory construction, that an IOU is distinguishable from negotiable payment instruments (like cheques or BACs) because it does not provide unreserved access to funds, and that authorities on different facts (e.g. Garforth) do not undermine the conclusion reached here.