InTDG (UK) v HMRC [2015] UKUT 167 (20 April 2015) the UT found that the operator of an approved excise warehouse was liable to UK duty and VAT due on goods which had left his warehouse and had not reached their destination in Spain.
TDG operated an approved excise warehouse where it stored goods under suspension of excise duty for both domestic and export markets. The dispute related to four consignments of alcohol allegedly bound for Spain but which had not reached their destination. Under Directive 92/12 as TDG had guaranteed the payment of the excise duties it was now liable for the duty under the Excise Goods (Holding Movement Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992. Under Regulation 4(2)(a) the excise duty point was the time when the goods had left the warehouse.
The UT stressed...
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:
InTDG (UK) v HMRC [2015] UKUT 167 (20 April 2015) the UT found that the operator of an approved excise warehouse was liable to UK duty and VAT due on goods which had left his warehouse and had not reached their destination in Spain.
TDG operated an approved excise warehouse where it stored goods under suspension of excise duty for both domestic and export markets. The dispute related to four consignments of alcohol allegedly bound for Spain but which had not reached their destination. Under Directive 92/12 as TDG had guaranteed the payment of the excise duties it was now liable for the duty under the Excise Goods (Holding Movement Warehousing and REDS) Regulations 1992. Under Regulation 4(2)(a) the excise duty point was the time when the goods had left the warehouse.
The UT stressed...
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:
