Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-02-10-Speech-3-249"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100210.25.3-249"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I welcome the application of the reverse charge VAT system. However, I discern an error in it. For example, subject A sold something to subject B. Subject B sold it to subject C. Subject C sold it to the end consumer or non-payer of VAT. Meanwhile, subject A does not pay VAT, as he is not the end-seller. Only subject C selling the final goods to the consumer pays VAT. The crux of this is that subject B is not taxed at all although the basis of his business is to buy low and sell high. Therefore, it is being proposed that subject B should pay VAT on the price difference to the state’s treasury. This scheme has many positive points, with one exception: no one will apply to the treasury for a VAT refund, but if subject C is a fraudster, then he simply will not pay VAT as the final seller. In other words, by applying the reverse charge VAT system, there will not be a negative balance, as no one will apply for a VAT refund and I feel that it will be very easy to administer this scheme, as state tax inspectorates will very easily be able to reveal the difference in the prices of goods. If I am mistaken, I would be very grateful for a written reply on the suitability or inadequacy of the scheme I have proposed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples