TC09533 - [2025] UKFTT 00593 (TC)

The evidence before us consisted of the 2024 accounts and Mr Kearney’s oral evidence.

The appellant’s argument that this would half the profits available to be distributed to shareholders which in turn would affect their ability to meet their living expenses, is an argument about hardship for the shareholders not the appellant.

The appellant’s financial position was and remains unclear to us. We accept that the excise duty is a significant sum for the business, and we accept that trading conditions have deteriorated since March 2024. We further accept that the appellant is a family run haulage business that has had to lay off drivers and, with profits of £124,797 on a turnover of some £2.4m, works on thin margins. However, that does not explain the balance sheet. Specifically, as we have said above, we struggle to accept Mr Kearney’s explanation of the “cash or cash equivalents” amount of £677,901. If the appellant’s accountant had given evidence, we might have had a better understanding of the position. For example, how the number changes if at all when the goods are delivered to the garden centres in April or May as explained by Mr Kearney in his oral evidence. The working capital was not explained to us in any depth and we have had no evidence beyond Mr Kearney’s general comments as to the trading position in the year since 31 March 2024, the date of those accounts.

In conclusion, we accept that there may well be hardship but the accounts and Mr Kearney’s evidence do not on a balance of probabilities demonstrate that is the case.

The appellant’s application for hardship is rejected.