Kearney Transport Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 22 May 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 593 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

Kearney Transport, a family haulage company, applied for hardship relief to avoid paying an assessed excise duty of £69,281 pending its appeal. The Tribunal found that the appellant bore the burden of proof and that the 2024 accounts together with oral evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate an inability to pay; the hardship application was therefore rejected. The appeal will not proceed unless the duty is paid or further steps are taken.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

The Tribunal applied and upheld the principle that the appellant bears the burden of proving hardship, and that a hardship application will be rejected where the appellant fails to provide clear, detailed financial evidence explaining and substantiating the claimed inability to pay—oral testimony unsupported by detailed accounting explanation or corroborating accountant evidence was insufficient on the facts.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The Tribunal observed that evidence about shareholders’ personal inability to draw dividends does not directly establish corporate hardship, and that contemporaneous accountant evidence could materially assist in explaining unclear balance-sheet items (such as large cash equivalents) and the company’s working-capital position.

Warning

The chunk contains substantial repetition and duplicated passages which may affect clarity. Notes contain substantial repetition and some duplicated passages; they may be materially incomplete.