- Agnieszka Hartleb, trading as Hartleb Transport, had her lorry seized at Dover with three pallets of cigarettes for which no duty had been paid
- HMRC issued an excise duty assessment and penalty against Hartleb Transport
- The Upper Tribunal had to determine who was the “holder” of the excise goods
- Factors considered included physical possession, de facto or legal control, timing of excise duty points, and where the goods were being held
- The UT found that Hartleb was the holder of the excise goods as she had control over their transportation through her employee
- Physical possession alone is not determinative in such cases.
Source: rpc.co.uk
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
Latest Posts in "United Kingdom"
- HMRC Guidance: Updates on VAT appeals
- VAT Exemption for Medical vs Cosmetic Treatments: Key Tribunal Guidance for Clinics and Practitioners
- HMRC Updates Guidance on Lost VAT Appeals: New Cases Added and Amended
- VAT Recovery Falls Despite Increased Crackdown on Business Tax Avoidance, HMRC Figures Show
- VAT Late Filing Penalties: Software Failure and Employee Error Not Reasonable Excuse, Appeal Dismissed
