Kerrie Brennan v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 5 November 2024

Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 1011 (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

This appeal concerned an excise duty assessment and Schedule 41 penalty after Border Force found 4,444.15 kg of tobacco in a container whose paperwork named the appellant as consignee. The Tribunal held the appellant was "holding" (or alternatively "making the delivery" of) the goods for regulation 13 purposes because she had de facto and/or legal control and was named on the transport documents, and it upheld the excise assessment. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to a non-deliberate Schedule 41 penalty 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: medium

From the judgment as reflected in the notes, a person can be treated as "holding" excise goods at the duty point without physical possession where they have de facto and/or legal control and are identified as consignee on transport documents; the consignee’s name and the ability to give delivery directions can be decisive in establishing who is "holding" or "making the delivery" under regulation 13.

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 notes record obiter observations that inaccuracies in an investigating officer’s statement do not automatically shift the burden of proof to HMRC absent legal or factual basis, and that a person who transacts in their personal name, provides personal contact details and pays freight will have difficulty relying on agency arguments unless a clear audit trail for the true principal is produced.