More than acting
Customs served a notice requiring security for VAT on the company, marked for the attention of the 'directors'. The company continued to trade and did not provide security. It made an out of time appeal against the notice, but later withdrew it. Customs took proceedings against the defendant, a de facto director of the company, under VATA 1994, Sch 1 para 4(2) and Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, s 171(4), on the grounds that the company had issued invoices without providing security. The director was convicted and appealed by way of case stated.
More than acting
Customs served a notice requiring security for VAT on the company, marked for the attention of the 'directors'. The company continued to trade and did not provide security. It made an out of time appeal against the notice, but later withdrew it. Customs took proceedings against the defendant, a de facto director of the company, under VATA 1994, Sch 1 para 4(2) and Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, s 171(4), on the grounds that the company had issued invoices without providing security. The director was convicted and appealed by way of case stated.
The Queen's Bench Division said that lodging a late appeal did not suspend the notice requiring security. Furthermore, a letter marked for the directors of a company did not exclude a person acting as a director. CEMA 1979, s 171(4) placed liability on all directors, including those acting as such. The defendant had received the notice of requirement for security and was sufficient to render him criminally liable.
The taxpayer's appeal was dismissed.
Chaudhry v CCE, Queen's Bench Division, 17 July 2007
