Guy Boardman v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 3 August 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 238 (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 appeal concerned whether SIPP purchases of shares in two Omega companies were at arm's length, whether an unauthorised payments surcharge should be discharged, and whether payments from related LLPs to Mr Boardman were taxable distributions. The Tribunal found the SIPP purchases were not at arm's length, upheld the unauthorised payments charge and refused to discharge the surcharge, and on the balance of probabilities treated the LLP payments as taxable distributions (with one 2014–15 distribution assessment reduced to nil by HMRC). Parties were given 56 days to apply for permission to appeal.
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’s binding reasoning includes that a scheme administrator’s mere confirmation of an offered issue price, without independent valuation or meaningful due diligence, is insufficient to establish an arm’s‑length purchase price for a SIPP; and that an honest belief or reliance on advisers does not automatically justify discharge of an unauthorised payments surcharge where the pension scheme actor failed to make reasonable enquiries consistent with the surcharge’s policy objective. Also, the withdrawal of an LLP’s appeal may be treated as acceptance of HMRC’s position on the LLP’s tax status for related individual appeals.
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 suggested (obiter) that audit letters or accounting explanations that do not purport to value shares should not be treated as reliable independent valuations by a hypothetical purchaser, and that evidence of circular fund flows and promoter control (eg power of attorney, related‑party payments) undermines a finding that an LLP had a genuine subjective intention to trade for profit.