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, the appellant 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 HMDP Regs. The assessment and penalty were not validly imposed on him.

Citation
[2015] UKFTT 330 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Jeffrey Williams; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
06 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Assessment and Civil Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty Assessment, Civil Penalty for Wrongdoing, Liability of Innocent Agents, Interpretation of EU Excise Directives, Proportionality of Penalties
Tax Law Customs and Excise Excise Duty Assessment Civil Penalty for Wrongdoing Liability of Innocent Agents Interpretation of EU Excise Directives Proportionality of Penalties

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 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

Excise Duty Assessment and Civil Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was liable for excise duty as a person making delivery or holding goods for commercial purposes under reg. 13 HMDP Regs.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's conduct was 'deliberate' for penalty purposes under Schedule 41 FA 2008.
  3. 3 Whether the assessment and penalty were proportionate and compliant with EU law and the Excise Directive.

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, the appellant 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 HMDP Regs. The assessment and penalty were not validly imposed on him.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Assessment to excise duty in the sum of £143,557 set aside.
  • Penalty in the sum of £55,269.44 set aside.