McGeown Transport Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 854 (TC)
Antelope Transport Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
8 April 2024
[2024] UKFTT 307 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company's truck was caught smuggling cigarettes. Even though the driver said he didn't know, the company was held responsible because they owned the truck. The company lost its appeal because the court said the rules are strict and that the company's actions showed they were deliberately trying to avoid paying taxes.
Key Facts
- •2,311,400 cigarettes were found concealed in a truck and trailer belonging to Antelope Transport Limited.
- •The truck and trailer were seized at Coquelles, France.
- •The driver, employed by Antelope Transport Limited, claimed ignorance of the cigarettes.
- •Antelope Transport Limited did not challenge the legality of the seizure.
- •Antelope Transport Limited was assessed £680,221.00 in excise duty and £408,132.60 in wrongdoing penalties.
Legal Principles
Liability for excise duty under Regulation 13 of the HMDP Regulations is strict; knowledge of the goods or duty evasion is not required.
Court of Appeal in Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Jones & anor [2011] EWCA Civ 84 and HMRC v Perfect [2022] EWCA Civ 330
'Holding' goods, for the purposes of excise duty, refers to physical possession, regardless of legal interest or awareness of duty chargeability.
CJEU in Case C-279/19 Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v WR
De facto or legal control of goods, without physical possession, can amount to 'holding' in appropriate cases. This is determined by considering who had physical possession, who had de facto/legal control, the excise duty point's time and location.
Upper Tribunal in Agniezska Hartleb T/A Hartleb Transport v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2024] UKUT 00034 (TCC)
Wrongdoing penalties under Schedule 41 of the Finance Act 2008 are assessed based on culpability (deliberate and concealed, deliberate but not concealed etc.), with penalties reduced for prompt disclosure and special circumstances.
Schedule 41 of the Finance Act 2008, HMRC v Tooth [2021] UKSC 17, Hare Wines Limited v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 25 (TC)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Appellant had de facto control of the goods through its employee and did not challenge the legality of the seizure. The assessment and penalty were deemed correctly calculated and imposed. The Tribunal rejected the arguments that the assessment was out of time and that there was insufficient evidence of the Appellant's involvement.