Neave v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY CIVIL PENALTY (see also EXCISE HYDROCARBON OIL [DUTY]) : Evasion) [2018] UKFTT 196 (TC) (11 April 2018)

Neave v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY CIVIL PENALTY (see also EXCISE HYDROCARBON OIL [DUTY]) : Evasion) [2018] UKFTT 196 (TC) (11 April 2018)

The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant knew he was not entitled to bring in the quantity of tobacco without declaring it and paying duty, and acted dishonestly by denying possession to the officer, thus satisfying the statutory requirements for a civil evasion penalty.

Citation
[2018] UKFTT 196
Parties
Appellant: Ian Neave; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty Evasion, Customs Duty Evasion, Civil Penalty, Dishonesty, Import VAT
Tax Law Excise Law Excise Duty Evasion Customs Duty Evasion Civil Penalty Dishonesty Import VAT

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Neave

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conduct was dishonest for the purposes of civil evasion penalties under Finance Act 1994 s8(1) and Finance Act 2003 s25(1)
  2. 2 Whether the penalty should be mitigated

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant knew he was not entitled to bring in the quantity of tobacco without declaring it and paying duty, and acted dishonestly by denying possession to the officer, thus satisfying the statutory requirements for a civil evasion penalty.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Penalty upheld; no mitigation granted