Asif Patel v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 80 (TC)
Anthony Leonard Speight v The Commissioners for HMRC
7 November 2024
[2024] UKFTT 1018 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone was caught with too much tobacco at the airport. The government tried to fine them for cheating, but they couldn't prove it because they didn't have enough evidence from the airport officers. So, the fine was cancelled.
Key Facts
- •Anthony Leonard Speight appealed penalties totaling £1,113 imposed by HMRC for the seizure of 12 kilograms of hand-rolling tobacco at Leeds Bradford Airport.
- •The tobacco was found in Speight's luggage upon arrival from Spain.
- •HMRC alleged Speight attempted to smuggle the tobacco without paying excise duty, customs duty, and import VAT.
- •Speight denied dishonesty and claimed he declared the goods at his first opportunity.
- •HMRC relied on Speight's untrue statement about prior customs stops and his refusal to pay duties when offered.
- •Border Force officer's notebooks were presented as evidence but not supported by witness statements from the officers involved.
- •The Tribunal found that HMRC failed to prove dishonesty on the balance of probabilities due to lack of witness evidence from Border Force officers.
Legal Principles
For a penalty under section 8(1) FA1994 and section 25(1) FA2003, it must be proved that conduct was for the purpose of evading duty or tax and involved dishonesty (as per Ivey v Genting Casinos).
Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67
The burden of proof for dishonesty and intent to evade lies on HMRC.
Finance Act 1994, section 16(6); Finance Act 2003, section 33(7)
Notebooks are not sufficient evidence unless their authenticity is undisputed or a witness testifies to their accuracy.
Hilden Park LLP v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 217 (TC); Jacks v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 613 (TC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
HMRC failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr. Speight acted dishonestly, due to insufficient evidence. The absence of witness statements from the Border Force officers who interacted with Mr. Speight was crucial to this decision.