Arthur v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 168 (TC) (15 July 2009)

Arthur v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 168 (TC) (15 July 2009)

The Tribunal held that the £2,000 deduction for restoration was reasonable and proportionate, being less than the duty on the goods, and that the appellant failed to provide satisfactory evidence regarding the proportion of goods for personal use. The review decision was defective for not specifying the payment in lieu of the vehicle, but a new review was not directed as the vehicle's value was no longer in dispute and no purpose would be served after such a long lapse of time.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 168
Parties
Appellant: Roger Brian Arthur; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Excise)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
15 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Restoration Appeal / Appeal Against Review Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Restoration of Seized Goods, Forfeiture, Proportionality, Tribunal Jurisdiction
Tax Law Customs and Excise Excise Duty Restoration of Seized Goods Forfeiture Proportionality Tribunal Jurisdiction

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Brian Arthur

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Excise)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Restoration Appeal / Appeal Against Review Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the £2,000 restoration fee deduction was reasonable and lawful
  2. 2 Whether the review decision was defective for failing to specify payment in lieu of the vehicle
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal should direct a new review given the defective review decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the £2,000 deduction for restoration was reasonable and proportionate, being less than the duty on the goods, and that the appellant failed to provide satisfactory evidence regarding the proportion of goods for personal use. The review decision was defective for not specifying the payment in lieu of the vehicle, but a new review was not directed as the vehicle's value was no longer in dispute and no purpose would be served after such a long lapse of time.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed