Background facts
Background facts
The Appellant was incorporated on 19 October 2005 and its directors are Paul Boyle, Pamela Cobbold and Nicola Cobbold.
The Appellant’s business activity is “the treatment and disposal of non-hazardous waste” through the collection/receiving of waste from a variety of commercial and domestic clients. The Appellant collects baled waste material and receives material delivered to its site waste from a wide variety of commercial and domestic sources, including local authorities, builders, the United States Air Force bases and domestic clients. The appellant sorts and separates the received material, recycling 85% with the remainder going to refuse derived fuel for electricity production.
On 5 December 2012, Officers Flatman (leading), Crotch, Wright, Prescott and Hansler, of the Fraud Investigation Service (‘FIS’), visited the Appellant’s premises (‘Freedom Farm’) (“the first visit”).Officer Flatman explained that the reason for the visit was to inspect the premises and ascertain if there were any alcohol products liable to excise duty on site. He also explained the legal power under which the inspection was taking place. Mr Boyle stated that some goods had been destroyed on the site about three years prior to the first visit. These were goods that were destined for use by United States Air Force personnel on the RAF bases they occupy. The goods under this regime would have been free of UK taxes.
No revenue goods were found on the Appellant’s premises and no further contact was made with the Appellant until 2014. Following further investigations, HMRC made enquiries with various hauliers.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The issues
- Burden and standard of proof
- Background facts
- The third parties/hauliers
- The second visit
- The Assessment
- The Penalty
- Appeal hearing
- Opening Submissions
- Third-Party Witness Statements
- Oral Evidence
- Closing Submissions
- Excise Duty Point
- The Assessment
- The Penalty
- [Emphasis added]
- Findings of fact
- Discussion
- Whether the Assessment and Penalty were issued in time
- [Emphasis added]
- Whether the Appellant had any involvement in the Goods
- Whether the Penalty has been properly applied
- Conclusions
![TC09158 - [2024] UKFTT 00369 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)