InHMRC v B & M Retail[2016] UKUT 0429 (10 October 2016) the UT found that in circumstances where HMRC is unable to assess any person who caused a prior release for consumption to occur it is open to the member state to assess in accordance with its own procedures any person who is found to be holding the goods within the meaning of Directive 2008/118/EC art 7(2)(b).
B & M traded as a value retailer with many product ranges including food and drink. HMRC had inspected B & M’s warehouse and detained beer and wine under CEMA 1979 s139 on the grounds that on a balance of probabilities excise duty had not been paid on the goods. Following an investigation during which no evidence of duty payment was found the goods were...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
InHMRC v B & M Retail[2016] UKUT 0429 (10 October 2016) the UT found that in circumstances where HMRC is unable to assess any person who caused a prior release for consumption to occur it is open to the member state to assess in accordance with its own procedures any person who is found to be holding the goods within the meaning of Directive 2008/118/EC art 7(2)(b).
B & M traded as a value retailer with many product ranges including food and drink. HMRC had inspected B & M’s warehouse and detained beer and wine under CEMA 1979 s139 on the grounds that on a balance of probabilities excise duty had not been paid on the goods. Following an investigation during which no evidence of duty payment was found the goods were...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
