Williams v Revenue & Customs (EXCISE DUTY CIVIL PENALTY (see also EXCISE HYDROCARBON OIL [DUTY]) : Assessment) [2015] UKFTT 330 (TC) (06 July 2015)

Williams v Revenue & Customs (EXCISE DUTY CIVIL PENALTY (see also EXCISE HYDROCARBON OIL [DUTY]) : Assessment) [2015] UKFTT 330 (TC) (06 July 2015)

On the evidence, Williams was no more than a courier paid to transport the goods into the UK and, being an innocent agent, was not holding the goods in the UK or making delivery of the goods within reg. 13. He lacked knowledge or reason to know of the fraudulent nature of the goods. Therefore, he is not liable for the excise duty assessment or penalty.

Citation
[2015] UKFTT 330
Parties
Appellant: Jeffrey Williams; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
06 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals against both assessment and penalty allowed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Civil Penalty, Commercial Purpose, Liability of Innocent Agents, Proportionality, Directive 2008/118/ec
Tax Law European Union Law Excise Duty Civil Penalty Commercial Purpose Liability of Innocent Agents Proportionality Directive 2008/118/ec

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeffrey Williams

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant held excise goods for a commercial purpose in the UK under reg. 13 Excise Duty (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was liable for excise duty and penalty as a person making delivery or holding goods intended for delivery
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was an innocent agent and not liable under Taylor and Wood

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, Williams was no more than a courier paid to transport the goods into the UK and, being an innocent agent, was not holding the goods in the UK or making delivery of the goods within reg. 13. He lacked knowledge or reason to know of the fraudulent nature of the goods. Therefore, he is not liable for the excise duty assessment or penalty.

Court Disposition

Appeals against both assessment and penalty allowed

Orders

  • Excise duty assessment of £143,557 quashed
  • Penalty of £55,269.44 quashed