Gerald Quinn v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, TC 07056
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Anne SCOTT |
| Judgment Date | 26 March 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKFTT 0208 (TC) |
| Respondent | The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs |
| Appellant | Gerald Quinn |
| Reference | TC 07056 |
| Court | First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
1
[2019] UKFTT 0208 (TC)
TC07056
Appeal number:TC/2013/07311
EXCISE DUTY - assessment - penalty - no actual or constructive knowledge
- application for stay - refused - appeal upheld - penalties not confirmed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
GERALD QUINN
Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
Respondents
REVENUE & CUSTOMS
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE ANNE SCOTT
Sitting in public at Belfast on 28 February 2019
Danny McNamee of McNamee McDonnell, Solicitors, for the Appellant
Richard Evans of Counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to
HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
2
DECISION
The issue
1. This is an undated appeal which was sent to the Tribunal on 22 October 2013
and acknowledged by the Tribunal on 1 November 2013. It relates to a decision by the
respondents (“HMRC”) dated 8 July 2013 whereby an assessment in the sum of
£39,087 for unpaid excise duty in relation to 15,426 litres of wine (“the Goods”) was
issued under Schedule 12 (1A) Finance Act 1994 and an Excise Wrongdoing Penalty
for £7,817 was issued under Schedule 41 Finance Act 2008. That decision was
reviewed, but only in relation to the assessment, and upheld on 24 September 2013.
2. The appellant’s liability to pay the excise duty on the Goods arises under
Regulation 13 of the Excise Goods (Holding Movement and Duty Point) Regulations
2010 (“the 2010 Regulations”).
Decision
3. The key fact that was conceded at the outset of this hearing was that HMRC had
accepted that the appellant had had no actual or constructive knowledge as to whether
duty had been paid.
4. In those circumstances the appeal is allowed and the penalty is not confirmed.
The facts
5. There is no dispute in relation to the facts.
6. On 13 July 2012, officers of the United Kingdom Border Force (“UKBF”)
intercepted vehicle 03CN3025, with trailer TD09, at the Eastern Docks, Dover. The
vehicle and trailer were carrying the Goods which had been loaded with wine going
from MT Manutention, France and destined for Seabrooks Warehousing, Barking,
Essex.
7. The appellant was the driver of the vehicle and Officers Ausher and Smith
spoke with him.
8. The appellant confirmed that he was employed by a firm called “Quinn
Brothers” in Donegal. Despite his surname he had no connection with that firm. He
said that he had been working intermittently for that firm for some three or four
months. He stated that he had “swapped” trailers near Calais the previous day, ie
12 July 2012.
9. On checking HMRC established that the appellant had previously been
intercepted on 12 May 2012 and had stated then that he worked for Quinn Brothers.
10. The appellant furnished the officers with a CMR (International Consignment
Note) for the goods. The CMR stated the Administrative Reference Code (“ARC”)
which is a unique number and was 12FRG0074000036806368.
To continue reading
Request your trial