- 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"
- Isle of Wight NHS Trust vs HMRC: VAT Exemption Dispute on Locum Medical Practitioners
- HMRC Guidance: How to correct VAT errors and make adjustments or claims (VAT Notice 700/45)
- Supreme Court Decision Mandates Prudential to Pay VAT on £9.3 Million Success Fees
- UK Supreme Court Rules on VAT Grouping and Time of Supply in Prudential Case
- High Court Rules in Favor of Hotelbeds UK on Input Tax Recovery Without VAT Invoices
