Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No exemption from VE0

5th July 2001, Page 23
5th July 2001
Page 23
Page 23, 5th July 2001 — No exemption from VE0
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Tachograph

A Carlisle company which fagged out fts vehicles to Holland has been accused of running a Dutch registered vehicle on domestic work without paying UK VED.

Geoffrey Bell (Carlisle) denied using the vehicle without a British vehicle excise licence and failing to produce tachograph records, when it appeared before the Leigh, Lancs, magistrates. Managing director Geoffrey Bell also denied failing to produce tachograph records and aiding and abetting the company to use an untaxed vehicle.

Prosecuting, Alan Bakkar said that last August the vehicle had been stopped by PC Grahame Robinson of Greater Manchester Police en route to Travis Perkins at Leigh from Yorkshire Building Supplies at Doncaster. It had a ministry plate bearing a British registration number, but was not displaying an excise licence and the driver was unable to produce a Community Authorisation.

When interviewed, Bell had said the vehicle was owned by Geoffrey Bell Transport BV and was operating under cabotage.

Arguing that the UK company was the "user" of the vehicle, Bakker said that the invoice for the work was generated in the name of Geoffrey Bell (Carlisle). It gave a UK address and bore UK telephone and fax numbers and indicated that the company was registered in the UK for VAT purposes.

When asked to produce tachograph records, Bell had said that to meet the requirements they were kept at the registered office in Holland. Asked when the vehicle had last returned to its operating centre, Bell had said that as there was no requirement to have an operating centre in Holland there was no requirement to return to it.

There was nothing to show the vehicle had been temporarily brought into the UK by a foreign resident, thus exempting Et from British VED, said Bader. The defendant company was based in the UK and the vehicle was being used on its business. "If the Dutch company exists, then it is a sham," he said.

In reply to John Heaton, defending, PC Robinson said that he had not checked the existence of the Dutch company in Holland or the possibility that the work was subcontracted to the Dutch company. He agreed that last August no vehicles were specified on the UK company's 0-licence.

The magistrates ruled that there was a case to answer and adjourned the hearing until a date could be fixed.

comments powered by Disqus