Mackin v Revenue & Customs (EXCISE DUTY APPEALS : Jurisdiction) [2018] UKFTT 515 (TC) (24 August 2018)

Mackin v Revenue & Customs (EXCISE DUTY APPEALS : Jurisdiction) [2018] UKFTT 515 (TC) (24 August 2018)

The Appellant was at least involved in the holding of duty-unpaid excise goods found in his home and pleaded guilty to being knowingly concerned in their fraudulent evasion. Under regulation 10(2) of the 2010 Regulations, he is jointly and severally liable for the duty. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the search warrant or HMRC's application of policy; such challenges must be by judicial review. No breach of human rights or abuse of process affecting the fairness of the hearing was established.

Citation
[2018] UKFTT 515
Parties
Appellant: John Mackin; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty Assessment, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Liability for Excise Duty, Unlawful Search Warrant, Judicial Review, Burden of Proof, Human Rights (echr)
Tax Law Excise Law Administrative Law Excise Duty Assessment Jurisdiction of Tribunal Liability for Excise Duty Unlawful Search Warrant Judicial Review +2 more

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Mackin

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant was liable for the excise duty assessment under the 2010 Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness of the search warrant and HMRC's application of policy
  3. 3 Whether HMRC's failure to act in accordance with a publicly stated policy or alleged abuse of process invalidated the assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant was at least involved in the holding of duty-unpaid excise goods found in his home and pleaded guilty to being knowingly concerned in their fraudulent evasion. Under regulation 10(2) of the 2010 Regulations, he is jointly and severally liable for the duty. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the search warrant or HMRC's application of policy; such challenges must be by judicial review. No breach of human rights or abuse of process affecting the fairness of the hearing was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed