In the first part of this article, published on 1 June, the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Optigen and Others [2006] was considered. A few months after this, a second VAT case – Commissioners of Customs and Excise and HM Attorney General v Federation of Technological Industries and 53 Others – was heard by the ECJ. The decision in this case will also have a significant impact on attempts by HM Revenue & Customs to slow or reverse losses to the revenue from carousel fraud.
In the Finance Bill 2003, the Government introduced two new measures intended “to tackle serious cases of VAT evasion and revenue losses from Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) fraud”. The new measures, applicable only to traders in telephones and computers (including parts and accessories) and software, were enacted as Sections 17 and 18 of the Act and introduced a ‘security provision’ (Section 17) and a ‘joint and several liability’ provision (Section 18) into the VAT Act 1994 (by amending paragraph four of Schedule 11 and introducing Section 77A respectively); both came into force on 10 April, 2003.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
