TC09625 - [2025] UKFTT 01066 (TC)

Mr Mciver also submitted that the problem facing UWG was of its own making: had it carried out appropriate checks on Brands/GB before entering into those deals, it would have received information about whether the goods had previously been released for consumption. He said that UWG was now improperly seeking to fill that information gap through use of the disclosure process.

When I asked what checks HMRC considered would have allowed UWG to fill their information gap, Mr Mciver took instructions and then said that UWG should have asked HMRC whether Brands/GB had completed a W5, which is a form used to declare payment of excise duties. If no duty had been paid (as happened here), HMRC would then have told UWG that no W5 had been filed, and UWG would have known not to enter the transactions.

Mr Thornton’s response was that had UWG asked for W5s, there would have been no transactions and the current dispute would not have arisen. He submitted that it cannot be correct for the Tribunal to refuse disclosure on the basis that an appellant could have prevented the liability arising in the first place by taking an entirely different course of action. I agree with Mr Thornton. Had UWG asked HMRC for W5s, there would have been no assessments and no appeal. But those are not our facts.