Qais Majeed Ali v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKUT 176 (TCC)
Charlene Hughes v The Commissioners for HMRC
29 April 2024
[2024] UKUT 108 (TCC)
Upper Tribunal
A woman was assessed for unpaid taxes on cigarettes found on her property. She argued someone else should have been taxed, but the court said she had to prove it, which she couldn't. The court also said she was responsible because she had the cigarettes. Her appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •HMRC assessed Ms Hughes £213,332 excise duty for unpaid cigarettes seized from her property.
- •Ms Hughes pleaded guilty to offences under POCA and CEMA, admitting to harbouring the cigarettes.
- •The FTT found Ms Hughes had physical possession of the cigarettes and knew they were duty unpaid.
- •The FTT dismissed Ms Hughes' appeal, holding she was 'holding' the cigarettes at the duty point.
- •Ms Hughes appealed to the Upper Tribunal, arguing for an earlier duty point and challenging the fairness and proportionality of the assessment.
Legal Principles
Excise duty point arises when excise goods are released for consumption in the UK.
Regulation 5 and 6 of the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010
Person liable for duty is the person holding the excise goods at the duty point.
Regulation 10 of the HMDP Regulations
HMRC must assess the earliest duty point they can establish.
Davison and Robinson Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKUT 0437 (TCC); Dawson’s (Wales) Ltd v HMRC [2023] EWCA Civ 332
Burden of proving an earlier duty point rests on the appellant.
Section 16(6) FA 1994
'Holding' in the context of excise duty means physical possession, regardless of knowledge or interest in the goods.
HMRC v WR (Case C-279/19); HMRC v Martyn Perfect [2022] EWCA Civ 799
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Upper Tribunal found the FTT correctly applied the law. Ms Hughes failed to discharge the burden of proving an earlier duty point, and the FTT’s finding that she was 'holding' the cigarettes was supported by the evidence.