Willis v Revenue & Customs (EXCISE DUTY CIVIL PENALTY (see also EXCISE HYDROCARBON OIL [DUTY]) : Assessment) [2015] UKFTT 205 (TC) (08 May 2015)

Willis v Revenue & Customs (EXCISE DUTY CIVIL PENALTY (see also EXCISE HYDROCARBON OIL [DUTY]) : Assessment) [2015] UKFTT 205 (TC) (08 May 2015)

The tribunal found that Mr Willis acted honestly as a driver with no proven interest in the goods, was not aware nor should reasonably have been aware of the illicit nature of the load, and thus was not 'holding' the goods for the purposes of Regulation 13(1). There was no proper basis for the assessment or penalty,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] UKFTT 205 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Bradley Willis; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
08 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Civil Penalty Assessment Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty Assessment, Civil Penalty, Liability of Drivers, Meaning of 'holding' Excise Goods, Burden of Proof in Tax Appeals
Tax Law Excise Law Excise Duty Assessment Civil Penalty Liability of Drivers Meaning of 'holding' Excise Goods Burden of Proof in Tax Appeals

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bradley Willis

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Civil Penalty Assessment Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, as a driver, was 'holding' excise goods for the purposes of Regulation 13(1) of the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement & Duty Point) Regulations 2010 and thus liable for excise duty and penalty.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had knowledge or should have had knowledge of the illicit nature of the goods.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that Mr Willis acted honestly as a driver with no proven interest in the goods, was not aware nor should reasonably have been aware of the illicit nature of the load, and thus was not 'holding' the goods for the purposes of Regulation 13(1). There was no proper basis for the assessment or penalty, which must be discharged.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Assessment for excise duty in the sum of £274,746 discharged.
  • Penalty of £54,949 discharged.