The Commissioners for HMRC v IPS Progression Limited
Decision date: 12 February 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 136 (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
The Tribunal determined that IPS Progression Ltd's umbrella PAYE scheme arrangements were "notifiable arrangements" under Part 7 FA 2004 (Description 5) because standardised documentation and repeated use across many employees brought the model within the description. IPS was a promoter required to disclose under s308(3) but did not provide the prescribed information until April/May 2022, had no reasonable excuse for the delay, and the Tribunal refused to admit post‑hearing evidence arguing time‑bar. Having balanced relevant factors the Tribunal imposed a s98C penalty of £900,000.
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: medium
The Tribunal treated repeated use of standardised documentation and processes across multiple persons as sufficient to bring arrangements within Description 5 (Hallmark 5) so as to be notifiable; it also held that a promoter’s duty to disclose under s308(3) arises from awareness of the transactional facts that constitute the arrangements (not from an awareness that those facts give rise to a legal obligation to notify), and that a disclosure framed "protectively" can nonetheless amount to compliance if it contains the prescribed information.
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 judgment indicated that protective wording in a disclosure should be permitted and does not prevent the discloser from later contesting any legal obligation to disclose; it also noted that the mere labelling of payments as "loans" is not determinative, as such amounts may be treated as earnings or bonuses depending on the contracts and practice.