William J Hetherington v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 8 January 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 7 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This appeal concerned an excise duty assessment after rebated (red) diesel was found in the appellant’s vehicle; HMRC carried out a fuel audit using mileage to estimate duty and issued an assessment reduced to £4,115. The Tribunal held HMRC was entitled to audit and that its methodology, as adjusted, was sound. The Tribunal also found the onus was on the appellant to prove legitimate non-rebated use and that he failed to discharge it, so the appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded.
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: medium
Detection of rebated fuel in a vehicle authorises HMRC to conduct a fuel audit and, where the audit methodology is supported by the evidence, to make an excise duty assessment; once rebated fuel is detected the burden rests on the person found with the fuel to prove legitimate (non-rebated) use, regardless of whether the user is a private motorist or a commercial operator.
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 noted that HMRC’s customary policy of not auditing private motorists is an extra-statutory concession rather than arising from the wording of the statute, and that private users cannot rely on their status alone to avoid proving legitimate fuel use when rebated fuel is discovered.
Warning
- The chunk contains duplicated passages and some minor typographical errors; care was taken to avoid repeating content. Notes contain duplicated passages and minor typographical errors; they may be incomplete.