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 evidential basis that the appellant had used the same ARC for multiple loads or that he was more than an innocent agent. The appellant was not 'holding' the goods within the meaning of Regulation 13 and was not liable for the excise duty assessment.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 153
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
Excise Duty Assessment Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty Liability, Seizure of Goods, Interpretation of 'holding' Under Excise Goods (holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010, Innocent Agent Defence
Tax Law Customs and Excise Excise Duty Liability Seizure of Goods Interpretation of 'holding' Under Excise Goods (holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010 Innocent Agent Defence

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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant, as a lorry driver, was liable for excise duty on seized goods 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 HMRC's assertion that the same ARC was used for multiple loads

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidential basis that the appellant had used the same ARC for multiple loads or that he was more than an innocent agent. The appellant was not 'holding' the goods within the meaning of Regulation 13 and was not liable for the excise duty assessment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The assessment for excise duty in the sum of £22,794 is discharged.