Cozens v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 228 (TC) (29 March 2012)

Cozens v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 228 (TC) (29 March 2012)

The tribunal found that the appellant had no assets of significant value that could reasonably be required as security for the assessed excise duty. His only asset, a share in a small private company, was not marketable and insignificant compared to the duty assessed. The tribunal accepted the appellant's explanations for the bank transactions and found no evidence of undisclosed assets. Therefore, the hardship claim succeeded and the appeal may proceed without security.

Citation
[2012] UKFTT 228
Parties
Appellant: John Cozens; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
29 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Appeal / Hardship Application Prior to Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Hardship claim allowed; appeal may proceed without security.
Legal Topics
Hardship Applications, Security for Tax Appeals, Joint and Several Liability, Assessment of Financial Position
Tax Law Excise Duty Hardship Applications Security for Tax Appeals Joint and Several Liability Assessment of Financial Position

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

Parties

John Cozens

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Appeal / Hardship Application Prior to Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant would suffer hardship if required to provide security for the assessed excise duty before his appeal is heard
  2. 2 Whether the appellant has assets sufficient to provide security for the excise duty assessed

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the appellant had no assets of significant value that could reasonably be required as security for the assessed excise duty. His only asset, a share in a small private company, was not marketable and insignificant compared to the duty assessed. The tribunal accepted the appellant's explanations for the bank transactions and found no evidence of undisclosed assets. Therefore, the hardship claim succeeded and the appeal may proceed without security.

Court Disposition

Hardship claim allowed; appeal may proceed without security.

Orders

  • The appellant's hardship application is granted.
  • The appeal against the assessment may now proceed.