Kendelse af 18-08-2021 - indlagt i TaxCons database den 18-09-2021

Klagen vedrører SKATs opkrævning af 23.099 kr. i spiritusafgift efter en kontrol ved indrejsefeltet i [by1] den 22. juli 2017.

Landsskatteretten stadfæster SKATs afgørelse.

Faktiske oplysninger

Den 22. juli 2017 blev et køretøj med registreringsnummer [reg.nr.1] udtaget til kontrol ved indrejsefeltet i [by1]. Der var foruden klageren, én passager, [person1], i bilen. Køretøjet med registreringsnummeret [reg.nr.1] er en Ford Transit, der er en varebil.

SKAT konstaterede ved kontrollen, at der i køretøjet befandt sig punktafgiftspligtige varer i form af 406 liter spiritus, og fik forevist kvitteringer for købet af varerne fra [virksomhed1] i [by2], Tyskland. Adspurgt om formålet med indkøbet tilkendegav klageren, at varerne tilhørte begge personer i køretøjet og skulle bruges til deres respektive bryllupper i Sverige.

Klageren har anført, at den indkøbte spiritus skulle serveres til polterabender for brud og gom inden brylluppet, selve bryllupsfesten og en efterfølgende reception. Klageren har desuden oplyst, at både føreren af bilen og passageren skulle afholde [...] bryllupper, som traditionelt har mellem 400 og 700 gæster.

Der er fremlagt følgende dokumentation for de to bryllupper:

Fra klagerens bryllup er der fremlagt invitation til bryllup den 7. juli 2018, gæsteliste med 526 gæster, bekræftelse på booking af festlokale hos [virksomhed2] samt seks bryllupsbilleder.

Som dokumentation for [person1]s bryllup er der fremlagt invitation til bryllup den 19. august 2017, gæsteliste med 618 navne, bekræftelse på booking af festlokale i [by3], Sverige, den 19. august 2017, faktura på leje af bil til bryllupstransport hos [virksomhed3] 19. august 2017, ordrebekræftelse på 245 invitationer fra [virksomhed4] samt vielsesattest fra borgerlig vielse i [Sverige] den 23. september 2017.

SKATs afgørelse

SKAT har truffet afgørelse om, at klageren skal betale 23.099 kr. i afgift af spiritus, idet indførslen af afgiftspligtige varer ikke kan anses at være til eget brug eller til brug for klagerens husstand.

Som begrundelse er anført følgende:

”Spiritusafgift

SKAT har den 22. juli 2017 opgjort spiritusafgiften til 23.099 kr. på baggrund af gennemgang af kvitteringer. Beløbet er efter reglerne i spiritusafgiftsloven og opkrævningsloven opgjort sådan:

ProduktAntalStørrelseAlkohol-Liter Afgift i kr.

indhold i %alkohol i alt

Smirnoff Vodka651,0037,565,003.652,25

Famous Grouse,

Absolut, Glenfiddich2011,0040,0201,0012.060,00

Yeri Raki910,7045,064,004.320,00

Jägermeister131,0035,013,00682,50

Captain Morgan241,0035,024,001.260,00

Bombay Sapphire21,0040,02,00120,00

Tekirdag30,7045,02,10141,75

Havana Club11,0040,01,0060,00

Southern Comfort11,0035,01,0052,50

Fireball Cinnemon

Whiskey11,0033,01,0049,50

Xante11,0038,01,0057,00

Country, Sambuca21,0040,02,00120,00

Galliano, Vanilla10,7030,00,7031,50

Barcadi Limon11,0032,01,0048,00

Bottega Limoncino10,5030,00,5022,50

Limoncello de Capri10,7032,00,7033,60

Hendricks Gin41,0044,01,00264,00

Absolut Vanilla21,0040,02,00120,00

I alt386,0023.099,10

(...)

SKAT har ved kontrollen den 22. juli 2017 konstateret, at du indførte spiritusafgiftspligtige varer.

Det er SKATs vurdering, at den indførte mængde, som opgjort ovenfor, ikke er til eget brug. Ved vurderingen har SKAT lagt vægt på, at mængden af spiritus er væsentligt større end den vejledende mængde.

Du kan uden at betale afgifter udelukkende indføre varer som er til din og din husstands eget forbrug. Da du har indført varer der ikke er til eget brug opkræver told- og skatteforvaltningen punktafgifter af disse varer. Afgiften forfalder til betaling ved modtagelsen/indførslen fra udlandet, og du hæfter for betalingen af afgiften.

Varer indført til eget brug som ikke indgår i afgiftsopkrævning

Ud fra en konkret vurdering af sagens forhold og din forklaring, finder SKAT det godtgjort, at en del af varerne er indført til privat brug. Den nedenfor opgjorte mængde indgår derfor ikke i opgørelsen af den afgiftspligtige mængde varer som du er afkrævet afgift af, da den godkendes indført afgiftsfrit til eget brug.

28,57 flasker Yeri Raki 45 % a 0,70 liter = 20 liter

SKATs endelige afgørelse

SKAT har den 4. november 2017 modtaget mail fra din medpassagers bror [person2], hvor du blandt andet skriver:

“[person3] and [person1] dispute the claim on Excise Duties for alcohol they, as private individuals, have purchased for own use and transported by them-selves between European Union Member States Germany, Denmark and Sweden. The act of subjecting Excise Duties against them is a direct violation of European Union (EU) legislation and does not adhere to the principles in Articles 32-33 of the Council Directive 2008/118/EC. It is understood that Danish laws and enact-ments have a stringent harmonization towards EU legislation in the matter of movement and taxation of alcohol products.

At border control 22 July 2017, the two individuals in question provided a truthful narrative explaining the intended usage for the alcohol. It is argued that Border officers made an incorrect risk judgement not believing the narrative, overlooking information and supporting documentation provided to them.

Da mængden af indførte varer er for stort til kun at være til eget forbrug finder SKAT det godtgjort, at kun en mindre del af varerne kan anses som værende indført til eget forbrug.

I Punktafgiftsvejledningen afsnit E.A.1.4.3 i afsnittet ”Vejledende mængder for drikkevarer og tobak”, står der følgende om medbragte varer:

”Mængden af medbragte varer vil kunne have et sådant omfang, at det må anses for tvivlsomt, at varerne kun er til eget brug, f.eks. hvor mængden ligger væsentligt over, hvad der med rimelighed kan bruges i en almindelig husholdning. I sådanne tilfælde må den rejsende kunne redegøre nærmere om formålet med varekøbet” Se Toldvejledningen F.A.28”

I Toldvejledningen afsnit F.A.29 Rejsegods er der henvist til TL § 11, hvor det fremgår at der må medtages følgende mængder:

• 10 liter spiritus (over 22 pct. alkohol samt drikkevarer tilsat spiritus)

Retningslinjer til brug for vurdering af eget brug kan fastsættes af told- og skatteforvaltningen jf. § 11, stk. 4.

Som tidligere nævnt i dette brev har du købt 406 liter spiritus, altså 386 liter over de vejledende mængder

EU – rådets direktiv 2008/118/EF af 16. december 2008 er implementeret i dansk lovgivning, som afgørelsen er truffet ud fra.

Da der således ikke er kommet nye informationer som vil ændre vores afgørelse træffer SKAT afgørelse i overensstemmelse med det udsendte forslag af 20. oktober 2017”.

Klagerens opfattelse

Klageren har nedlagt påstand om afgiftsfritagelse, idet de indførte afgiftspligtige varer var til eget brug ved klageren og hans passagers respektive bryllupper i Sverige.

Til støtte for påstanden har klageren anført følgende:

“Excise duties have been wrongly applied to alcohol the plaintiffs, as private individuals, acquired in [Tyskland], Germany for own use at their upcoming weddings in Sweden. The alcohol was personally transported between European Union (EU) Member States Germany, Denmark and Sweden. The final destination was the plaintiffs’ homes in [by3], Sweden, where the alcohol would be stored until the weddings.

The act of subjecting Danish excise duties on alcohol bought in Germany and intended for own personal use in Sweden stands in direct violation to EU legislation and Danish laws on movement and taxation of alcohol products within EU.

Form of order sought

It is requested by Skatteankestyrelsen to fully revoke the subjection of excise duty and decide to have the paid amount of 23 099 DKK along with reasonable interest (e.g. using SKAT own rates, skm.dk) from the date of payment be refunded to the plaintiffs.

Legal basis

[person3] and [person1] acquired alcohol in Germany as private individuals for personal use. The intended use is the wedding celebrations of respective plaintiff in Sweden,i.e. closed private events for the plaintiffs with private guests.

Excise duty on alcohol for private usage should not apply in accordance with Article 32(1) of European Council Directive 2008/118/EC and Danish national laws Toldloven §11, spritusafgiftsloven §15. Article 32 (1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC states that Excise duty on excise goods acquired by a private individual for his own use, and transported from one Member State to another by him, shall be charged only in the Member State in which the excise goods are acquired. In this case, duties and other charges on the alcohol have been paid in Germany, the state of acquisition. Consequently, no excise duty should be chargeable in Denmark.

In accordance with article 32(3) of European Council Directive 2008/118/EC and SKAT’s legal guideline “Den juridiske vejledning 2017-1”, the guide levels on the quantity of alcohol should solely be used as a form of evidence, and not applied as strict quantitative restrictions for importation. Even though the carried quantity is higher than the importation guide levels laid down, the intended usage remains strictly private. The quantity of imported alcohol is reasonable in relation to the actual private use, i.e. the plaintiffs’ wedding occasions.

It should stand clear that the plaintiffs have fulfilled any burden of proof expected by them when importing larger alcohol quantities within EU. Extensive evidence have been provided to verify that the intention, and in the case of [person1] (whose wedding has taken place), also the usage of the alcohol, has been private. The plaintiffs have provided truthful, precise and consistent explanations with supportive and verifiable documentation to the private usage of the total quantity of alcohol. The weddings are extraordinary private occasions celebrated together with high number of private guests and where larger quantities of alcohol are served and consumed. Weighting the quantity of alcohol against the intended usage and other assessment factors e.g. the means of transportation, the plaintiffs’ employment status and a single occurrence, the conditions of Article 32 should be regarded as fulfilled for the entire quantity of imported alcohol.

It is argued that the plaintiffs’ explanation on usage of the alcohol should stand indisputable. The written decision from SKAT does not oppose neither the plaintiffs’ statements on the intended usage nor the provided evidence and its probative value. Reviews of other Danish legal cases regarding application of excise duties on alcohol held by private individuals display that in those cases where SKAT perceives any vague, suspicions, unsubstantiated or inconsistent claims on private usage, the agency’s case documentation would typically disclose such ambiguous findings. The case documentation of [person3] and [person1] does not contain any such remarks.

Last of all, EU legalization and court practice permits private individuals to import alcohol for family celebrations (e.g. a wedding, birthday, some other significant occasion). It is also concluded that personal use comprises alcohol for own self, family and private guests. Based on the provided documentation, it should stand clear that wedding parties of [...]/[...] ethnic group are of a considerable size. Although, they remain private celebrations. Subjection of excise duties on alcohol intended to the weddings of the plaintiffs can be seen as acts of violation against EU and national anti-discrimination legalization. The plaintiffs’ rights should not mistreated in any way. Rights can be effectively restricted e.g. by conducting direct comparisons of alcohol quantities or serving etiquettes made to weddings of other or own customs/norms and ruling out the quantity as commercial.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement further evidence at a later stage as additional information becomes available.

Remarks on SKAT decision and handling procedure

SKAT took a decision to subject excise duties on the total quantity of alcohol exceeding the national guide levels, i.e. 386 liters of alcohol deemed as held for commercial use and 20 liters considered as for own use. The decision from SKAT (J.nr. 17-1287978), dated 20 December 2017, discloses several material deficiencies. Furthermore, SKAT’s handling of the case has been negligent and reckless.

As a first point, it is evident that SKAT’s judgment of the commercial character of the alcohol is solely grounded on the high quantity of alcohol and the exceeding of the national guide levels. Page 4 of the written decision states “the quantity of the alcohol is too large to be considered for own usage” (translation from Danish). The judgment does not adhere to the determination principles stated in European Council Directive 2008/118/EC article 32 (2) and Danish national law and legal guidelines. SKAT has not shown how other assessment criteria stated in mentioned directive, also found in SKAT’s own guide F.A.29 Den juridiske vejledning 2017-1, are been accounted for in an overall determination of private versus commercial status. The legislation says that Member States should at least take into account all factors in order to make a sound judgement. Using a purely quantitative criterion for determining a commercial status completely lacks legal basis. Such actions has previously been dismissed in European Court of Justice, e.g. see court proceedings 2011/C 226/22, 2007/C170/04.

Secondly, conclusive evidence and documentation supporting the plaintiffs’ claim on private usage have not been accounted for by SKAT in the decision making. The plaintiffs’ complaint comprises an extensive evidence list that effectively disproves any presumption on commercial purpose and supports the fulfilment of private usage according to Article 32 (2). In addition to documentation supporting the claim on intended usage before the weddings, the complaint (submitted post the wedding of [person1]) contains distinct evidence on the actual alcohol usage in connection to [person1]’s wedding celebrations.

Thirdly, SKAT has not properly explained why the total quantity exceeding national guide levels was labeled with commercial purpose, whereas a quantity corresponding the guide levels has been accepted as for private use. A discretionary application of setting private usage quantities equal to the guide levels lacks legal basis. As stated above, SKAT has not expressed open doubts to the plaintiffs’ claim on the usage is the alcohol serving of the two private weddings. On the other hand, applying SKAT’s decision to the intended use, this effectively means that 10 liters alcohol cover the need of a sizeable wedding.

Furthermore, it is as evident that SKAT’s handling of the case has been highly negligent and reckless. A closer examination of the intended usage of the alcohol has not been conducted. Customs border officers have showed mechanic rejection handling when dismissing a precise and verifiable explanation with supportive documentation on private usage. The plaintiffs have then afterwards contacted SKAT numerous times during the period of 22 July – 22 December 2017, either by themselves or through agent, to establish a direct cooperative and transparent communication line to clarify the wrongful judgement on commercial use. The responsible SKAT administrator has made no effort to respond to the requests. Moreover, it is argued that SKAT at a certain point realize the plaintiffs’ narrative to be truthful, but decide to subject excise duties and deliberately disengage in further examination of the intended usage and dialog around case circumstances.

Case facts

Plaintiff [person1] is 26 years old. He is a born citizen and resident of Sweden. After finalizing university studies in 2014, [person1] has a full-time occupation as programmer/system developer. Plaintiff [person3] is 27 years old. He is a born citizen and resident of Sweden. He works as a full-time electrician since 2016. The plaintiffs are friends since childhood. Both of them are of [...]/[...] descent. It should stand clear that both plaintiffs with their full-time employments and decent salaries have no interest whatsoever in any commercial aspects of alcohol importation. Furthermore, other important facts strengthening the claim are the plaintiffs’ clean police records and no former reports on alcohol importation should be taken into consideration.

On 22 July 2017, [person3] and [person1] made a round-trip from Sweden to Germany by own transportation to buy alcohol for their respective weddings. At this time, both of the plaintiffs were engaged to their fiancés and wedding plans were well advanced, including reservations for church ceremonies and wedding hall. Within the [...]/[...] ethnic group, weddings are highly important celebrations. The weddings are known to be costly and big gatherings with a high number of weddings guest (see attachment 1, external articles describing [...]/[...] wedding customs). Due to the high number of wedding guests, lawful private importation of alcohol from Germany becomes an economically justified option that can save the wedding couple a significant amount of money. As many others, the plaintiffs chose to pursue this option instead of buying alcohol to more costly prices from government-owned retailer (“Systembolaget”) in Sweden.

The date of the trip was determined by the forthcoming wedding of [person1], on 19 August 2017, and the plaintiffs’ summer vacation period. Although some time remained until the wedding of [person3], it was concluded as favorable to purchase the alcohol for his wedding at the same time. He was anyway accompanying the trip as co-driver. Buying his alcohol as well meant that transportation costs (e.g. ferry, fuel, rental car) were split between both of them, and thereby reducing each ones expenses by half.

None of the plaintiffs had earlier imported alcohol from another EU-country by own transportation or in larger quantities. The plaintiffs have many acquaintances who have imported alcohol for their own weddings previously without any issues. They were aware that large quantity importation would require proof for the alcohol being for private use. Prior to the trip, contact was also made with the Swedish Customs Agency (“Tullverket”) to align the understanding of proper documentation to put forward as verification of private use of importation. Based on the discussion, the plaintiffs collected relevant and at the time available documentation as proof of the occurrence of their upcoming weddings. Tullverket also informed about the vehicle maks. load provisions and warned about the provisions being the potential limiting factors for the plaintiffs’ importation rather than actual alcohol quantity.

At the border shops in [Tyskland], Germany, the plaintiffs’ bought 406 liters of alcohol. [person3] bought 188.6 liters and [person1] bought 217.4 liters. The list below presents an overview of the acquired alcohol, the purchaser and intended use.

Product AmountSize (l)PurchaserIntended own use

Smirnoff Vodka651,0[person3]Wedding party (table serv-

ing), shower (x 2 – bride, groom), reception

Famous Grouse571,0[person3]Wedding party (table serv-

(Whisky)ing), shower (x 2 – bride, groom), reception

Yeni Raki650,7[person3]Wedding party (table serv-

ing), shower (x 2 – bride,

groom), reception

Jägermeister121,0[person3]Wedding party (bar table),

shower (groom)

Captain Morgan121,0[person3]Wedding party (bar table),

shower (groom)

Tekirdag10,7[person3]Wedding shower (groom)

Hendricks Gin21,0[person3]Wedding shower (groom)

Absolut Vodka821,0[person1]Wedding party (table serv-

ing), shower (x 2 – bride,

groom), reception

Glenfiddich Whisky621,0[person1]Wedding party (table serv-

ing), shower (x 2 – bride,

groom), reception

Yeni Raki620,7[person1]Wedding party (table serv-

ing), shower (x 2 – bride,

groom), reception

Captain Morgan121,0[person1]Wedding party (bar table),

Shower (groom)

Jägermeister11,0[person1]Wedding table (bar table)

Bombay Sapphire21,0[person1]Wedding table (bar table)

Tekirdag30,7[person1]Wedding table (bar table)

Havana Club11,0[person1]Wedding table (bar table)

Southern Comfort11,0[person1]Wedding table (bar table)

Fireball Cinnemon11,0[person1]Wedding table (bar table)

Xante11,0[person1]Wedding table (bar table)

Country Sambuca21,0[person1]Wedding table (bar table)

Galliano Vanilla10,7[person1]Wedding table (bar table)

Bacardi Lemon11,0[person1]Wedding table (bar table)

Bottega Limoncino10,5[person1]Wedding table (bar table)

Limoncello de Captri10,7[person1]Wedding table (bar table)

Hendricks Gin21,0[person1]Wedding table (bar table)

Absolut Vanilla21,0[person1]Wedding table (bar table)

On the return trip from Germany, carrying the purchased alcohol, the plaintiffs were stopped at Danish border control. When questioned about the alcohol in their possession, they explained their intention to use the alcohol for their weddings. Supporting documentation was also handed over (see attachments 4 and 8). Follow-up control questions asked by customs officers were answered precisely. Despite the explanation and documentation given, claims on own use were refused. The reasons given were that the alcohol was too much to be considered for own use, even for two weddings, and that the quantity was several times larger than the guide levels. The plaintiffs tried to argue that the quantity was reasonable for the actual intent, e.g. by dividing the quantity into number of celebrations, attending guests, drinks per person etc. However, all attempts to convince the officers were deemed unsuccessful. The plaintiffs made a guarantee payment of excise duty at the border, to prevent the alcohol from being seized. They were handed a receipt of the payment.

[person1]’s church wedding was carried out on 19 August 2017 as planned. The wedding ceremony was held at [...] in [by3], Sweden. The wedding party took place in the wedding venue of [...] in [by3], Sweden. To the wedding of [person1], 700 people were invited. Attachment 6 shows proof of the purchase of 245 wedding cards. At the time of trip to Germany, the number of expected guests was close to 600 persons. However, late cancellations from several planned attendants due to sudden death of a close relative just before the wedding. In the end, about 550 persons attended the wedding party (excluding wedding artists, camera crew, church representatives, wedding organizer team). See attachment 2 for photo evidence from the wedding and attachment 3 discloses the full attendance list.

The alcohol acquired by [person1] on 22 July 2017 was consumed privately during the wedding party and related wedding week celebrations. Earlier during the wedding week, the bride and groom held each their wedding shower (known as héno). Each shower had around 60 participants consisting of close family, friends and travelling guests. Food and alcohol was served. The day after the wedding, a post-wedding reception (called sabahie) was held for the wedding couple. 120 persons from closest family, friends and travelers attended. Also the reception has service of food and alcohol. The list below shows the wedding events where the imported alcohol has been used.

Wedding eventsDate Attendants

Groom Shower16 august 201760

Bridal Shower17 august 201760

Wedding party19 august 2017550

Post-wedding reception20 august 2017120

Before that, between 22 July - 19 August 2017 (i.e. from date of importation and until the date of [person1]’s wedding), numerous attempts were made to establish contact with SKAT. The purpose was to clarify the misunderstanding around commercial use and align on the proof the agency would to see for an acceptance of the truthful fact that the alcohol was to be used privately for the weddings. However, SKAT chose not to respond to the contact attempts. Similar attempts, to find a mutual agreement on substantiating evidence, were made post [person1]’s wedding and up until 22 December 2017 (the date of SKAT decision), without any hearing from SKAT.

[person3]’s wedding is scheduled for 07 July 2018. The wedding preparations are ongoing. The wedding ceremony will be held at [...] in [by3] and the wedding will take place in the church’s party venue. The expected number of guests is around 520 people. See attachment 7 shows the planned guest list. Furthermore, according to the established customs, [person3] will be organizing wedding showers and reception during the wedding week.

Especially regarding wedding customs, alcohol serving etiquette and required quantities This section specifically addresses the wedding customs and alcohol serving to demonstrate that the imported quantity of alcohol is reasonable in relation to the intended private usage. This is done by explaining both the [...]/[...] wedding customs in general and applying the customs to the specific weddings of the plaintiffs.

In general, the food and alcohol servings at [...]/[...] wedding parties are carried out in a highly standardized manner. This is especially the case in the region of [by4], Sweden where around 20 wedding parties a week are held in a selection of specialized wedding halls with the capacity and competency to organize such celebrations. Bookings for popular wedding halls are made at least one year in advance. The wedding parties have many guests, normally somewhere between 400 – 700 persons. Celebrations take place during the weekend and last for eight to nine hours evening/nighttime, typically 8 pm – 03 am.

Wedding halls normally have an agreement with a wedding organizer. The wedding organizer’s main service is the food catering. It is also common that the wedding organizer acts as full service partner offering optional or compulsory arrangements for the wedding day, e.g. transportation, flowers and photographer/cameraman. The wedding couple can typically choose between different wedding packages to suit their needs. However, the alcohol for the party is always bought and transported to the wedding hall by the wedding couple. This has to do with the ownership of the alcohol, which governs license rights for alcohol serving.

In the wedding hall, if capacity allows, round tables are used for seating of 10 to 12 people. Food is served as seated meals during the party. The serving consists of three or four courses along with 10-15 meze dishes that are served at the table and refilled when needed. Alcohol and beverages are placed on the tables, available for the guests to freely serve themselves throughout the evening. Three kind of spirits, Vodka, Raki and Whisky, are an expected minimum according to established wedding customs to be served at the wedding tables. Each table will have one bottle of Vodka, Raki and Whisky each. In the event of a table running out of a specific spirit, which happens, a new bottle is retrieved by the waiter and replaced on the table. This effectively means that for a wedding with 50 round tables, there will be a minimum requirement of 150 bottles of Vodka, Whiskey and Raki. Additionally, it is required to have a sufficient spare alcohol (normal estimate is around 10 bottles for each kind of spirits) to cover the need for table refills. Proper etiquette prescribe that only sealed bottles are served on the tables. This means e.g. that open bottles from wedding showers can not be used for the wedding party.

In addition to the abovementioned customary table serving, some weddings will have extra spirits offering as well. This could e.g. be an additional alcohol of own choice served on the table (e.g. Rum, Gin, Jägermeister), bartender serving or a standing bar table where guests can choose between a wider selection of spirits and mixers, and mix their own drinks.

It should stand clear that the quantities acquired by the plaintiffs are reasonable in regards to their intended usage, i.e. the wedding celebrations of each wedding.

For the wedding party of [person1], Vodka, Raki and Whisky spirits was served at all tables (47 guest tables, wedding couple table, three-piece long-table for the artist band and camera team, wedding organizer, and church representatives). Furthermore, as shown in one a the pictures of attachment 2, a standing bar table with a wider selection of alcohol and mixers was organized where guests could mix their own special drinks. All alcohol bottles served at the tables were not left dry empty after the completed wedding party. However, the overwhelming majority of served bottles got open. Portions of the imported alcohol was consumed at the two wedding showers (approximately 25 bottles). Open bottles from wedding showers and wedding party were served at the wedding reception. Very small quantities of alcohol in unsealed bottles remained after the wedding week celebration.

At [person3]’s upcoming wedding party, table servings will consist of Vodka, Raki and Whisky spirits. There will also be alcohol servings for the wedding showers and post wedding-day reception”.

Klageren har desuden anmodet om præjudiciel forelæggelse af sagen for EU-Domstolen med følgende begrundelse:

”Request for preliminary ruling for the Court of Justice of the European Union

In conjunction to the appeal of [person3] and [person1] on SKAT decision J.nr. 17-1287978, Skatteankestyrelsen is requested to bring this case to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.

The reason for the request is a legitimate concern that, although Danish law and enactments are harmonized with EU legislation, national authority and court practice is misinterpreting and misapplying European Directive in a way that opposes private importation rights of alcohol within EU.

Beside the distressing experience from SKAT procedures and decision-making in the case of [person3] and [person1], read-throughs of other court cases in Denmark concerning private importation (available at http://www.afgoerelsesdatabasen.dk/) strengthen the feared concern and lack of confidence.

The following legal cases from Danish Landsskatteretten has been reviewed:

Following the abovementioned review, it does not stand clear that Danish court practice determination of commercial status is considering all assessment factors in a balanced manner. Rulings are highly emphasizing the quantity of alcohol and its relation to guide levels. Claims on private usage are dismissed without evidence of a closer examination of intent being carried out. In several legal cases, dismissals are justified with statements as “the imported quantity of the goods in question can not be assumed to be intended for the complainant's own use, since the amount is significantly above what can reasonably be expected to be used in a normal household”. Court practice is applying guide levels as base levels for normal household consumption. Similar practice is not found in EU legislation and court practice. The comparison is problematic from several perspective, e.g. the fact that spirits do not have expire dates, the frequency of which a certain individual import alcohol is unknown, assumption that household alcohol consumption is static over time (not accounting for extraordinary private celebrations e.g. wedding, birthday and other occasions). Furthermore, for private individuals travelling longer distance by own transportation to buy alcohol to lower price, the effort becomes justified first when it involves extraordinary private occasions requiring larger quantities.

When the weight being assigned to the minimum guide levels in practice is so high, the practical consequence becomes that the guide levels figure as quantitative restrictions (limits). It is seemingly disturbing that combined development in Danish custom agency and court discretion is undermining EU and national legislation, which regards the guide levels as one of several factors which should be taken into account when making an overall judgement.

Furthermore, for EU-citizen from another Member State (such as [person3], [person1]), it is apparent that significant differences exist in how the national authorities and courts are practicing the EU legislation. Comparing the practice of corresponding Swedish authorities and courts to the Danish one, an overall judgement and examination of intent of excise goods importation exceeding guide evels according to Articles 32 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC is performed much more exhaustively, cf. Regeringsrätten RÅ 2009 ref. 83. “

Landsskatterettens afgørelse

Når der i det følgende henvises til spiritusafgiftsloven, er dette en henvisning til den dagældende lovbekendtgørelse nr. 82 af 21. januar 2016 om afgift af spiritus m.m. som ændret ved lov nr. 1554 af 13. december 2016.

Det følger spiritusafgiftslovens § 1, stk. 1, at der skal svares afgift til statskassen af spiritus, herunder ætanol, over 1,2 % vol. samt af vin og frugtvin m.v. med et alkoholindhold over 22 % vol. For spiritus udgør afgiften 150 kr. pr. l 100 % ren alkohol.

Det fremgår af spiritusafgiftslovens § 2a, at der betales afgift af spiritus her i landet ved overgangen til forbrug, dvs. når varerne forlader en ordning under suspension af afgiften, eller ved modtagelsen, når varer fra andre EU-lande erhverves af virksomheder og personer, der ikke er berettiget til at oplægge varerne uden afgiftsberigtigelse, jf. spiritusafgiftslovens §§ 7 og 8.

Efter spiritusafgiftslovens § 15, stk. 3, ydes der afgiftsfritagelse af varer, som privatpersoner selv indfører til eget brug fra et andet EU-land, i hvilket varerne er erhvervet i beskattet stand. Det fremgår af cirkulationsdirektivets artikel 32, stk. 2, at medlemslandene ved vurderingen af, om de punktafgiftspligtige varer er bestemt til en privatpersons eget brug, mindst skal tage hensyn til personens forretningsmæssige status og begrundelse, stedet, hvor varerne befinder sig, eller, når det er relevant, den anvendte transportform, ethvert dokument vedrørende varerne samt arten og mængden af varerne. Medlemsstaterne kan desuden opstille vejledende mængder for indførelse af varer med henblik på at godtgøre de i stk. 2 nævnte forhold vedrørende varernes mængder, jf. artikel 32, stk. 3. For spiritus må den vejledende mængde ikke være mindre end 10 l, jf. artikel 32, stk. 3. De her i landet indførte retningslinjer findes i Skattestyrelsens juridiske vejledning og var på afgørelsestidspunktet enslydende med cirkulationsdirektivets minimumsregler.

Landsskatteretten lægger efter det oplyste til grund, at den omhandlende mængde spiritus og øl blev indkøbt i et andet EU-land, Tyskland, og herefter indført af klageren til Danmark.

Retten bemærker, at de afgiftspligtige varer er transporteret i en varebil, og at mængden af afgiftspligtig spiritus overstiger den vejledende mængde mere end 39 gange.

Retten finder, at det indførte kvantum af de afgiftspligtige varer, ikke kan antages at være bestemt til klagerens eget brug.

Retten bemærker herved, at på baggrund af måden de afgiftspligtige varer blev transporteret på, og da de vejledende mængder er væsentligt overskredet, har klageren bevisbyrden for, at de afgiftspligtige varer er til eget forbrug. Retten finder at klageren, med forklaringen om, at de afgiftspligtige varer skulle anvendes til klagerens og passagerens respektive bryllupper, ikke på tilstrækkelig vis har dokumenteret eller sandsynliggjort at de afgiftspligtige varer var til eget brug, jf. spiritusafgiftslovens § 15, stk. 3. Ved vurderingen har retten bl.a. lagt vægt på, at klagerens bryllup først blev afholdt mere end 11 måneder efter kontrollen, at det af klagerens aftale med cateringsfirmaet ikke er specificeret, om aftalen indeholder levering af mad, drikkevarer, bordpynt m.v., og at der ligeledes ikke fremgår lejebetingelser af aftalen, og at klageren eller passageren ikke i øvrigt har fremlagt objektiv konstaterbar dokumentation for, at drikkevarerne blev anvendt ved de respektive bryllupper.

Vestre Landsret har ved dom af den 22. november 2012 (offentliggjort som SKM2013.52.VLR) taget stilling til, hvorvidt en appellant, der havde indført en palle øl til landet, svarende til 855 l øl, med rette var blevet afkrævet afgift af øllen. Landsretten fandt, at en del af de 855 l øl var til eget forbrug, og fastsatte skønsmæssigt som følge heraf denne mængde til 110 l, som appellanten ikke var afgiftspligtig af. Appellanten skulle derfor alene betale afgift af 745 l øl.

SKAT konstaterede ved kontrollen, at der i køretøjet befandt sig punktafgiftspligtige varer i form af 406 l spiritus. SKAT frigav ved kontrollen 20 l spiritus, og har beregnet afgift af 386 l spiritus.

Henset til Vestre Landsrets dom af 22. november 2012 og spiritusafgiftslovens § 15, stk. 3, finder retten, at SKAT med rette har opkrævet afgift af 386 l spiritus.

For så vidt angår den resterende mængde spiritus finder retten, at varerne kan betegnes som klagerens og passagerens eget forbrug.

Klageren har ønsket sagen forelagt for EU-Domstolen som et præjudicielt spørgsmål. Landsskatteretten finder, at en afgørelse fra EU-domstolen af dette spørgsmål ikke er nødvendig, inden der træffes afgørelse i sagen, jf. artikel 267 i Traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde. Der ses herved ikke at være tilstrækkelig tvivl om fortolkning af EU-retten, og der er derfor ikke grundlag for at forelægge sagen for EU-domstolen.

Landsskatteretten stadfæster på denne baggrund SKATs afgørelse.