Neil Griffin v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 29 January 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 176 (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
This appeal challenged a joint excise and customs civil evasion penalty imposed after 6,000 cigarettes were seized from the appellant at Heathrow. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant had acted dishonestly, applied mitigation for disclosure and co‑operation, and reduced the penalty to £2,252. The Tribunal could not take the appellant's inability to pay into account and noted it has no jurisdiction to challenge the fairness of the law.
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
The Tribunal treated HMRC as bearing the burden to prove dishonesty on the balance of probabilities and applied the Ivey test to determine dishonesty in a civil penalty case under the Finance Acts; it also held that in exercising statutory discretion to reduce penalties the Tribunal may not consider the appellant’s inability to pay.
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 decision noted HMRC’s mitigation policy (Notice 300) provides up to 40% reductions for disclosure and up to 40% for co‑operation and observed that prompt informal contact (emails/telephone) can be a relevant factor where written responses were not provided within expected timescales, but such factors are not decisive or statutory rules.