LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Attwell-Hughes (1991) - VAT Evasion by Deception

​Case Summary:
  • Defendant (D): Hotel Manager, charged with VAT evasion by deception.
Key Issue:
  • Whether D's claim that the VAT liability belonged to the hotel owner, not him, invalidated the indictment.
Defendant's Argument:
  • The liability to pay VAT rested solely with the hotel owner, therefore D couldn't be held liable for evading his liability.
Court's Ruling (Held):
  • The trial judge was correct to reject D's argument and convict him.
Reasoning:
  • Theft Act 1978, Section 2(1)(b): Covers scenarios where the defendant intends:
    • To make a permanent default in respect of their own personal liability.
    • To enable another to make a permanent default in respect of that other's liability.
  • Relevance to the Case:
    • The court emphasizes that it doesn't matter who was ultimately liable for the VAT (D or the hotel owner).
    • The indictment was correctly worded because the intention to create a permanent default (either personally or for another) satisfies the requirements of the Theft Act.
Key Takeaway:
  • Section 2(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1978 is broad enough to cover both direct evasion of one's own liability and enabling another to evade their liability. The focus is on the intention to create a permanent default.
Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law