![[2024] UKUT 00321 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Ground 4: an appeal would need to consider whether HMRCs’ decision-making was proportionate
Ground 4: an appeal would need to consider whether HMRCs’ decision-making was proportionate
The Applicant has not identified any basis on which it is said that the penalties breach the approach to be taken in considering proportionality The principles which have been applied by the courts in addressing proportionality, in the context of penalties imposed in the context of legislation based upon European Directives (such as customs duty and VAT), are in summary that: (i) that penalties must not go beyond what is strictly necessary for the objectives pursued, and (ii) that a penalty must not be so disproportionate to the gravity of the infringement that it becomes an obstacle to, the underlying aims of the directive ( see Paraskevas Louloudakis v Elliniko Dimosio (Case C-262/99) [2001] ECR I-5547). The Applicant has not engaged with such principles. The fact that a penalty may be severe or harsh in a particular person’s circumstances does not, without more, mean that the principles of proportionality are breached.
Furthermore, in the case of HMRC v Trinity Mirror Group PLC [2015] UKUT 0421 (TCC) the following principles were set out (at para 15):
- Heading
- JUDGE TRACEY BOWLER
- When can an appeal be made?
- The Decision
- Grounds of appeal
- My decision
- Consideration of the Grounds
- Ground 1: the FTT erred by taking into account the merits of the appeal
- Ground 2: the FTT applied too high a threshold by referring to the need for a “compelling” case which is higher than the threshold of “more than just arguable”
- Ground 3: the Applicant’s case is not rather weak
- Ground 4: an appeal would need to consider whether HMRCs’ decision-making was proportionate
- “A wide discretion is conferred on the Government and Parliament in devising a
- Ground 5 - the FTT has failed to take into account the large amount of the penalties and has granted HMRC a windfall
- Ground 6 – exceptional hardship
- “The core point is that (on the evidence available to the FTT) Mr Katib would suffer hardship if he (in effect) lost the appeal for procedural reasons. However, that again is a common feature which co
- Conclusions