Simon Charles Newson t/a Whirly Wine v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 31 March 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 400 (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 appeal concerned a £2,000 AWRS penalty imposed on Mr Simon Newson for carrying on controlled alcohol wholesaling without AWRS approval from 27 November 2017 until June 2022. The Tribunal found he continued trading while aware approval was required and failed to pursue registration diligently, classifying the contravention as deliberate but not concealed, and upheld HMRC’s calculation and application of the statutory mitigation, dismissing the appeal.

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 taxpayer continues to trade while knowing AWRS approval is required and allows the lack of approval to persist over a prolonged period without diligent pursuit of registration, that conduct can properly be classified as a deliberate (though not necessarily dishonest) contravention for penalty purposes; where the contravention is deliberate but not concealed and disclosure is prompted, HMRC may properly apply the statutory mitigation floor (20% of the maximum) in calculating the penalty.

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 technical difficulties with HMRC’s online systems, inability to contact HMRC, reliance on an adviser, personal or business pressures, or payment of duties may explain the taxpayer’s conduct but do not automatically negate deliberateness nor discharge the statutory requirement to hold AWRS approval.