An Excise Quandary Resolved
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ADECISION by Lord Goddard in the Divisional Court earlier this year (reported in The Commercial Motor on February l'3) placed the revenue authorities in a difficult position. The case concerned the taxation of vehicles and the judge's ruling had the effect of preventing anyone from being charged with the offence of aiding and abetting another person in avoiding excise duties.
The reason in law for this decision was that many so-called excise " offences " are not offences at all, but merely provide a convenient method by which the excise authorities can claim and recover in a magistrates' court duties and penalties as a civil debt owed to them. This is the case whenever " penalties " are specifically mentioned in excise statutes. As these are not criminal offences, it is impossible to aid and abet their commission, because the act of aiding and abetting refers only to offences. It had been the custom of the revenue authorities to charge the actual perpetrator of the "offence with avoiding the duty and the employers with aiding and abetting. As an aider and abettor can be punished as though he were the principal offender, the result was that the courts imposed the heavier penalty on the employer and generally inflicted a nominal penalty on the employee.
Obviously as a result of representations by the customs and excise authorities to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a section to restore their rights was inserted in the Finance Act, 1953, This occurred unnoticed by almost anyone except a few members of the legal profession. By Section 33 of the Act, "any act or omission in respect of which a pecuniary penalty (however described) is imposed by the Customs or Excise Acts, as defined by the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, is an offence under those Acts. . ."