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 review decision was defective for failing to specify the payment in lieu of restoration, but declined to direct a new review because the value of the car was no longer in dispute and the appellant provided no satisfactory evidence on the proportion of goods for personal use. The £2,000 deduction was found reasonable and proportionate given the circumstances and the lack of clear evidence from the appellant.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 168 (TC)
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
Restoration of Seized Vehicles, Excise Duty, Proportionality in Restoration Conditions, Jurisdiction of Tribunal After Disposal of Goods
Tax Law Customs and Excise Restoration of Seized Vehicles Excise Duty Proportionality in Restoration Conditions Jurisdiction of Tribunal After Disposal of Goods

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 restoration
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal should direct a new review given the defective review decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the review decision was defective for failing to specify the payment in lieu of restoration, but declined to direct a new review because the value of the car was no longer in dispute and the appellant provided no satisfactory evidence on the proportion of goods for personal use. The £2,000 deduction was found reasonable and proportionate given the circumstances and the lack of clear evidence from the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed