Gordon McKenzie v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 30 June 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 986 (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 HMRC’s seizure of 6kg of hand rolling tobacco from Mr McKenzie, an excise duty assessment of £1,628 and a deliberate wrongdoing penalty of £569.80. The First-tier Tribunal upheld the duty assessment because Mr McKenzie did not challenge the seizure within the statutory period and the goods were therefore deemed forfeited, but it reduced the penalty after finding his conduct was not deliberate. The Tribunal treated intention for penalty purposes as a separate factual inquiry not resolved by the statutory deeming of forfeiture.
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 person fails to challenge a seizure within the statutory period so that the goods are statutorily deemed forfeited, the Tribunal cannot treat those goods as held for personal use and may uphold an excise duty assessment; however, that deeming does not automatically determine the taxpayer’s mental state for purposes of a deliberate wrongdoing penalty, which requires assessment of intention from the evidence and circumstances.
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, consistent with earlier authorities, that false or misleading statements to Border Force can support a finding of deliberate conduct in an appropriate case, but stressed this is not invariably determinative; it also commented on differing FTT authorities about how deeming provisions interact with culpability inquiries and endorsed treating "deliberate" as a matter of state of mind assessed on the whole evidence.
Warning
Chunk contains significant repetition and duplicated passages; care taken to avoid inventing facts. Notes contain repetition and duplicated passages; they appear to capture the main decision but may not include the full judgment text.