W J Black & Co v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 18 May 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 330 (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 concerned an HMRC assessment of £31,603 for alleged excess duty on fuel in a Volvo lorry after a non-standard auxiliary tank was found; HMRC's audit disallowed fuel above the confirmed standard tank capacity and produced a best-judgment assessment. The Tribunal found the additional tank was non-standard and not used as required under the Directive/1995 Order, upheld HMRC's audit methodology and assessment, and dismissed the appeal.
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
Where a vehicle has a non-standard auxiliary tank and the feeder is not being used to supply fuel in the manner contemplated by the travellers' relief, fuel in that tank does not qualify for the relief; and an HMRC assessment based on a documented fuel audit can stand as a proper best-judgment assessment unless the taxpayer produces credible, evidentially supported rebuttal.
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: high
The Tribunal expressed skepticism about reliance on industry guidance (RHA guidance) where the factual circumstances relied on by the taxpayer (such as change of ownership) did not exist, and noted that verbal assertions and uncorroborated schedules are insufficient to overturn an assessment grounded in audit evidence.