Paul Anthony Haigh v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 810 (TC)
Steven Anthony Lefort v The Commissioners for HMRC
17 October 2024
[2024] UKFTT 926 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone lost their pension tax protection because their old employer paid extra money into their pension after the deadline. The tax tribunal said the rules are clear, and they couldn't change the outcome even if the payment was a mistake, because only a higher court can deal with that.
Key Facts
- •HMRC revoked Steven Lefort's Fixed Protection 2014 (FP 2014) certificate.
- •The revocation was due to a contribution made by Lefort's former employer, Virgin Atlantic, on May 5, 2014, after the April 5, 2014 cut-off date.
- •Lefort argued he lacked control over the payment and that HMRC should have exercised discretion in his favor.
- •Lefort's claim that the payment was made later than required and that he was not entitled to it are central issues.
Legal Principles
HMRC may revoke a certificate if they have reason to believe a paragraph 1(3) event (benefit accrual) has occurred.
Regulation 11(a) of the FP 2014 Regulations
The burden of proof is on HMRC to show that the relevant condition in reg. 11 is met.
Case Law
The FtT's jurisdiction is to determine whether HMRC revoked the certificate in accordance with the regulations.
Regulation 12(3) of the FP 2014 Regulations
The FtT does not have jurisdiction to consider the exercise of HMRC's discretion or grant rescission.
Case Law (Hoey, Caerdav, Harrison)
Rescission is an equitable remedy available to the High Court, not the FtT.
Case Law (Pitt v Holt, Kennedy v Kennedy)
A 'relevant contribution' includes a contribution paid by a former employer.
Section 279 FA 2004 and paragraph 14(1)(b) of Schedule 36, FA 2004
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
HMRC correctly revoked the FP 2014 certificate because a relevant contribution was made after the cut-off date, constituting a benefit accrual. The FtT lacked jurisdiction to consider discretionary factors or grant rescission.