Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Dalriada Trustees Limited (as Administrator of the Grosvenor Parade Pension Scheme & Ors) & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC

[2023] UKFTT 314 (TC)
Imagine a group of piggy banks lending money to each other, pretending it's not breaking the rules about early withdrawals. The tax man investigated and said that the rules *were* broken, and everyone involved owes extra tax. The appeals failed because the scheme was badly designed, and those involved didn't get proper advice beforehand.

Key Facts

  • Six registered occupational pension schemes (Ark Schemes) operated a Pensions Reciprocation Plan (PRP).
  • The PRP involved reciprocal loans between members of different Ark Schemes (MPVA loans).
  • Dalriada Trustees Limited was appointed as independent trustee of the Ark Schemes.
  • HMRC assessed Dalriada and Ark Scheme members to tax under Part 4 of the Finance Act 2004.
  • Appeals were lodged against unauthorised payments charges, surcharges, scheme sanction charges, and refusal to discharge surcharges.
  • Ms Oades received MPVA loans and did not repay them.
  • Mr Donaghy-Sutton did not receive MPVA loans but was assessed due to the scheme's structure.

Legal Principles

Unauthorised member payments are payments not specified in section 164 of the FA 2004.

Finance Act 2004, Section 160

Using scheme assets to provide a benefit (other than a payment) to a member is treated as an unauthorised payment.

Finance Act 2004, Section 173

An unauthorised payments charge (40%) is imposed on members receiving unauthorised payments.

Finance Act 2004, Section 208

An unauthorised payments surcharge (15%) is imposed on members receiving surchargeable unauthorised payments.

Finance Act 2004, Section 209

A scheme sanction charge (40%) is imposed on the scheme administrator for scheme chargeable payments.

Finance Act 2004, Section 239

Applications to discharge liabilities can be made under Section 268 of the FA 2004.

Finance Act 2004, Section 268

A payment made in breach of trust still amounts to a 'payment' for tax purposes.

Clark v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2020] EWCA Civ 204

Outcomes

Appeals against scheme sanction charges dismissed.

Scheme administrator's belief that MPVA loans were not scheme chargeable payments was deemed unreasonable.

Ms Oades's appeal against refusal to discharge unauthorised payments surcharge dismissed.

Ms Oades did not make a valid application to discharge the surcharge within the time limit.

Each MPVA loan made by a scheme was an unauthorised payment in respect of the matched member(s) of that scheme.

Member-to-member matching was the intended operating principle of the PRP.

The receipt of an MPVA loan by a member is treated as a deemed unauthorised payment under Sections 160(2)(b) and 173.

The benefit of the loan, even if indirectly received, constitutes a deemed unauthorised payment.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.