Hare Wines Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 3 January 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 25 (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
HMRC assessed Hare Wines Limited (HWL) for unpaid excise duty after finding 61 cases of OJ Beer and concluding a relied-on invoice from Shakthi was forged. The First-tier Tribunal found the Disputed Invoice not genuine, held HWL liable for the duty assessment, and upheld a Schedule 41 wrongdoing penalty of £957 for deliberate and concealed conduct. HWL’s appeals were dismissed.
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 party produces a document subsequently shown to be forged and cannot otherwise show that excise duty has been paid, the holder may be held liable for the unpaid duty; for Schedule 41 penalties, “deliberate” conduct can be established where the appellant intentionally acquired or sold goods known to be duty-unpaid and intentionally failed to pay the duty, and “concealment” can include providing false or inconsistent accounts and a falsified invoice to HMRC.
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 indicated that failure to call available witnesses who could give direct evidence can leave a party reliant on limited evidence and justify adverse findings based on inherent probabilities, and that differences in invoice formatting and absence from a supplier’s retained records are strong indicators an invoice may be not genuine.