Murray v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY - BEER : Assessment) [2016] UKFTT 153 (TC) (03 March 2016)

Murray v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY - BEER : Assessment) [2016] UKFTT 153 (TC) (03 March 2016)

There was no evidence that the appellant had used the same ARC twice or that he was anything other than an innocent agent. The burden of proof was on HMRC to show the appellant was 'holding' the goods within the meaning of Regulation 13, which they failed to do. The assessment was based on unsubstantiated theory rather than evidence.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 153 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Mr Noel Christopher Murray; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
03 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Assessment for Excise Duty / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty Assessment, Liability of Drivers for Excise Goods, Interpretation of 'holding' Under Excise Goods (holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010, Burden of Proof in Excise Assessments
Tax Law Excise Law Excise Duty Assessment Liability of Drivers for Excise Goods Interpretation of 'holding' Under Excise Goods (holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010 Burden of Proof in Excise Assessments

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

Mr Noel Christopher Murray

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Assessment for Excise Duty / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, as a lorry driver, was liable for excise duty assessed under Regulation 13 of the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was 'holding' the goods for the purposes of the Regulations
  3. 3 Whether there was evidential basis for the assessment that the same ARC was used twice

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the appellant had used the same ARC twice or that he was anything other than an innocent agent. The burden of proof was on HMRC to show the appellant was 'holding' the goods within the meaning of Regulation 13, which they failed to do. The assessment was based on unsubstantiated theory rather than evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The assessment for excise duty is discharged.