Guy Boardman v The Commissioners for HMRC

Guy Boardman v The Commissioners for HMRC

The Tribunal found that the price paid by the SIPP for the shares exceeded the amount which might be expected to be paid at arm’s length, so an unauthorised payments charge and surcharge arose. The Tribunal held it was not just and reasonable to discharge the surcharge, as Mr Boardman failed to exercise reasonable care and due diligence. The Tribunal found that distributions were made to Mr Boardman by the LLPs, which were not trading with a view to profit, and thus the payments were taxable as distributions.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Guy Boardman; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed subject to amendment requested by Respondents
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Pension Payments, Arm’s Length Transactions, Distributions From Llps, Surcharge Discharge, Trading Status of Llps
Tax Law Pensions Law Unauthorised Pension Payments Arm’s Length Transactions Distributions From Llps Surcharge Discharge Trading Status of Llps

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Guy Boardman

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the price paid by the pension scheme for shares exceeded arm’s length value
  2. 2 Whether it is just and reasonable to discharge the unauthorised payments surcharge
  3. 3 Whether distributions were made to the appellant from the LLPs

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the price paid by the SIPP for the shares exceeded the amount which might be expected to be paid at arm’s length, so an unauthorised payments charge and surcharge arose. The Tribunal held it was not just and reasonable to discharge the surcharge, as Mr Boardman failed to exercise reasonable care and due diligence. The Tribunal found that distributions were made to Mr Boardman by the LLPs, which were not trading with a view to profit, and thus the payments were taxable as distributions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed subject to amendment requested by Respondents

Orders

  • Assessment for unauthorised payments charge upheld
  • Assessment for surcharge upheld