Tax

Eden Consulting Services (Richmond) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX : Pension scheme)

[2017] UKFTT TC TC06038First-tier Tribunal (Tax)2017

Get the AI brief for this case

Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

INCOME TAX � unauthorised employer loan � whether loan is secured by a charge of adequate value as required by section 179 Finance Act 2004 � no

Mr Sanjeev Sharma, an adviser from The Finance Warehouse Limited, for the Appellant

Ms Moira Browne, Counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents

On 29 October 2004 Datasky Consulting Limited (�DCL�) established an occupational pension scheme, the Datasky Consulting Executive Pension Scheme (�the Pension Scheme�). Eden was appointed as the new principal employer in place of DCL with effect from 6 April 2006 and it is a sponsoring employer within section 150(6) FA 2004.

Eden was incorporated on 22 October 1999 as Eden Consulting Services Limited and changed its name to Eden Consulting Services (Richmond) Limited on 23 May 2011. Eden owns the Crown House building at 9 Duke Street, Richmond, Surrey TW9 1HP (�the Property�).� On 12 July 2004 a first charge over the Property was registered at Companies House in favour of Barclays Bank PLC (�Barclays�) in respect of all monies due or to become due from Eden to the bank.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Tax cases

Wood & Anor v Revenue and Customs (Stamp Duty Land Tax - rate of SDLT applicable - whether Table A or Table B - whether the house and land included land that was not residential property - whether all of land was, or formed part of, grounds of house - Finance Act 2003, ss 55, 116)

[2026] UKFTT TC 265

New Claire Wine Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Discovery assessments - extended time limit assessments - penalty for inaccuracy in a return - deliberate inaccuracy - whether deliberate inaccuracy necessarily involves dishonesty - whether HMRC required to specifically plead and prove dishonesty - whether the FTT erred in failing to explain how the appellant's conduct might not involve dishonesty)

[2026] UKUT TCC 116

Trees v Revenue and Customs (VAT - penalties - director's liability notice (DLN) - section 60 and 61 VATA 1994 - Kittel appeal in 2020 - HMRC expressly not pleading dishonesty)

[2026] UKUT TCC 92

RSK Cars Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - whether trader was entitled to use the VAT margin scheme for second-hand vehicles)

[2026] UKFTT TC 122

Alesen Direct Solutions Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Company undertaking construction work; VAT assessment; hardship application; company made advances to related entities/persons; hardship denied)

[2026] UKFTT TC 398

Rodrigues v Revenue and Customs

[2026] UKUT TCC 75

Common Room

Discussion

0 comments · About the Common Room →

No comments yet — start the discussion.

Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.

Tax