McPeake v Revenue & Customs (EXCISE DUTY - BEER : Assessment) [2015] UKFTT 356 (TC) (15 July 2015)

McPeake v Revenue & Customs (EXCISE DUTY - BEER : Assessment) [2015] UKFTT 356 (TC) (15 July 2015)

The appellant had actual physical possession and control of the goods, knew their nature, and was not subject to supervision or control by others during transport. He was 'holding' the goods for purposes of regulation 13(2)(b) of the 2010 Regulations and liable for the excise duty assessment. No reasonable excuse or special circumstances for the penalty were established; the penalty was properly calculated and imposed.

Citation
[2015] UKFTT 356
Parties
Appellant: Patrick Joseph McPeake; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
15 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Assessment and Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Excise Goods (holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010, Liability for Excise Duty, Definition of 'holding' Goods, Penalty Under Finance Act 2008 Schedule 41
Tax Law Excise Law Excise Goods (holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010 Liability for Excise Duty Definition of 'holding' Goods Penalty Under Finance Act 2008 Schedule 41

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Joseph McPeake

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Assessment and Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the appellant 'holding' excise goods for purposes of regulation 13 of the 2010 Regulations?
  2. 2 Is the appellant liable for the excise duty assessment and penalty?
  3. 3 Does the appellant have a reasonable excuse under Schedule 41 for the penalty?

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant had actual physical possession and control of the goods, knew their nature, and was not subject to supervision or control by others during transport. He was 'holding' the goods for purposes of regulation 13(2)(b) of the 2010 Regulations and liable for the excise duty assessment. No reasonable excuse or special circumstances for the penalty were established; the penalty was properly calculated and imposed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Assessment of £31,748 excise duty upheld
  • Penalty of £6,349 under Schedule 41 upheld