Niall Murphy v The Commissioners for HMRC

Niall Murphy v The Commissioners for HMRC

The appellant, as the physical holder of the goods at the relevant time, is strictly liable for the excise duty under the applicable legislation, regardless of knowledge or ownership. The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review HMRC's exercise of discretion not to assess, and the appellant's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, precluding a finding that he was an innocent agent or entitled to a reasonable excuse defence. The penalty was properly assessed as deliberate.

Parties
Appellant: Niall Murphy; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Tax/excise Duty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Substantive Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty Assessment, Excise Wrongdoing Penalty, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Strict Liability for Excise Duty, Reasonable Excuse Defence, Exercise of HMRC Discretion
Tax Law Excise Law Administrative Law Excise Duty Assessment Excise Wrongdoing Penalty Jurisdiction of Tribunal Strict Liability for Excise Duty Reasonable Excuse Defence +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Niall Murphy

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax/excise Duty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Substantive Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is liable for excise duty as the holder of goods under the relevant legislation
  2. 2 Whether HMRC failed to exercise discretion not to assess the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to review HMRC's exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, as the physical holder of the goods at the relevant time, is strictly liable for the excise duty under the applicable legislation, regardless of knowledge or ownership. The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review HMRC's exercise of discretion not to assess, and the appellant's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, precluding a finding that he was an innocent agent or entitled to a reasonable excuse defence. The penalty was properly assessed as deliberate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Excise duty assessment of £23,560 confirmed in full
  • Wrongdoing penalty assessment of £9,895 confirmed in full