Hare Wines Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 14 June 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 536 (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
Hare Wines Limited appealed an excise duty assessment of £1,126 and a wrongdoing penalty of £957, relying solely on a disputed Shakthi invoice. The Tribunal found HMRC had shown before the hearing that the invoice was not genuine and that HWL acted unreasonably in bringing and conducting the appeal against the Assessment, but refused the costs claim insofar as it related to the Penalty. HMRC was awarded costs of £20,764.85 (two-thirds apportioned to the Assessment, one-third to the Penalty).
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 respondent provides detailed, unchallenged evidence before the Tribunal that an evidential foundation relied on by the appellant (here, a disputed invoice) is not genuine, an appellant who persists in an appeal based solely on that document may be treated as having acted unreasonably for costs purposes; however, an appellant’s challenge to a wrongdoing penalty based on asserted belief in the documents is not necessarily unreasonable simply because the Tribunal later doubts that belief, since the burden of proof on state of mind rests with the respondent.
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 summary assessment is an appropriate and proportionate method to resolve costs without detailed dissection of each time entry, that Guideline Hourly Rates and appropriate counsel rates may be applied when assessing costs on the standard basis, and that the size of the tax/penalty is not the sole determinant of proportionality where regulatory/fitness issues (such as AWRS compliance) are relevant.