The court considered the use of R v Ghosh when considering whether dishonesty had been established under section 13 of the 1983 Act, saying: ‘It is to be observed that in section 13(1) the first requirement for liability to a penalty is that the taxpayer shall have done, or refrained from doing, something ‘for the purpose of evading tax’. But that alone is not sufficient to impose liability, something else is necessary, namely, his conduct must involve ‘dishonesty’. It seems to us clear that in such a context, where a person has, ex hypothesi, done, or omitted to do, something with the intention of evading tax, then by adding that that conduct must involve dishonesty before the penalty is to attach, Parliament must have intended to add a further mental element in addition to the mental element of intending to evade tax. We think that that element can only be that when he did, or omitted to do, the act with the intention of evading tax, he knew that according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people that what he was doing would be regarded as dishonest. In other words we think that it is evident from the wording of section 13(1) taken as a whole that the word ‘dishonesty’ is to bear the meaning that was given to it, where it appears in the Theft Act 1968, by the Court of Appeal (see R v Ghosh). In the majority of cases brought under this section the course of conduct adopted by the taxpayer will be such that the necessary mental element of dishonesty can be readily inferred.’
Citations:
[1989] VATTR 39
Statutes:
Value Added Tax Act 1983 13(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Ghosh CACD 5-Apr-1982
The defendant surgeon was said to have made false claims for payment for operations, and was charged under the 1968 Act. He claimed to have been entitled to the sums claimed, and denied that he had been dishonest. The court considered the meaning of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Zen Internet Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 5-Apr-2004
VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – dishonest evasion – VATA s 60 – appellant paying six successive centrally-issued assessments for less than the true liability – inadequate attempts to put accounting records in order – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
VAT
Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.510895