Michael Standing v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 7 August 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 698 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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
This appeal concerns a £1,144 civil evasion penalty imposed after Mr Standing was stopped at Leeds Bradford airport on 14 January 2020 with 10,580 cigarettes, which he admitted belonged to him. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that he subjectively knew the quantity exceeded his personal allowance, that his inconsistent explanations and conduct were objectively dishonest, and that HMRC’s decision to apply a 70% mitigating reduction (giving a £1,144 penalty on £3,818 duty evaded) was appropriate; the appeal was dismissed. The tribunal also proceeded in the appellant’s absence as it was satisfied he had been properly notified and would suffer less prejudice from proceeding.
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
Where a traveller imports a very large quantity far exceeding personal allowance and gives inconsistent accounts, a tribunal may infer subjective knowledge of evasion and, applying ordinary standards of honesty, find objective dishonesty sufficient to uphold a civil evasion penalty; failure to disclose ownership or payment at the point of seizure can undermine entitlement to maximum mitigation.
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 decision suggests (obiter) that the presence of customer information and public guidance at ports, and the sheer magnitude of the excess quantity, may be relevant indicators of what a reasonable or honest traveller would have done and can be persuasive evidence that the traveller knew duty would be payable.