Vasile Cerchez v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 3 July 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1006 (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 case concerns two seizures of beer in June and July 2016 where Mr Cerchez was found in physical possession at the first UK excise duty point; HMRC assessed excise duty and imposed Schedule 41 penalties. The Tribunal held Mr Cerchez was the holder for excise duty purposes so the duty assessments stand, but found HMRC did not prove deliberate conduct and that Mr Cerchez’s extreme hardship caused by enforcement amounted to special circumstances. Exercising its substitution power, the Tribunal reduced both Schedule 41 penalties to nil.

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: physical possession at the first UK excise duty point is the primary basis for identifying the “holder,” and a person in possession must identify any other person who should be treated as holder; absent such identification HMRC may assess the person in possession. Paragraph 14 of Schedule 41 allows reduction (including to nil) for special circumstances distinct from mere inability to pay, and if HMRC fail to consider relevant special circumstances their decision may be flawed.

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 observed that HMRC should consider special circumstances (beyond mere inability to pay) when prompted and give adequate reasons rather than automatic or boilerplate responses; and that severe consequences of enforcement can, in an extreme case, amount to special circumstances justifying cancellation of penalties.