Eatough v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 335 (TC) (19 May 2011)

Eatough v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 335 (TC) (19 May 2011)

Section 108(3)(b) CEMA 1979 clearly imposes liability for excise duty on both the company and the signatory of the entry form. The law is sufficiently clear, and ignorance of the consequences does not negate liability. The assessment was lawfully raised against the Appellant, and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the fairness or reasonableness of the assessment once lawfulness is established.

Citation
[2011] UKFTT 335
Parties
Appellant: Neil Eatough; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Personal Liability of Directors, Corporate Personality, Legitimate Expectation, Reasonableness, Proportionality, Human Rights, Non Discrimination
Tax Law Administrative Law European Law Excise Duty Personal Liability of Directors Corporate Personality Legitimate Expectation Reasonableness +3 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Eatough

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assessment to excise duty was lawfully raised against the Appellant as a director and signatory of Form EX103A
  2. 2 Whether the review decision upholding the assessment was unreasonable, disproportionate, or infringed principles of human rights, fairness, or non-discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

Section 108(3)(b) CEMA 1979 clearly imposes liability for excise duty on both the company and the signatory of the entry form. The law is sufficiently clear, and ignorance of the consequences does not negate liability. The assessment was lawfully raised against the Appellant, and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the fairness or reasonableness of the assessment once lawfulness is established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed