I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that this case involves the seizure of a non-State registered motor vehicle owned by a State resident. The vehicle in question was a new means of transport when it was acquired in the UK in June 2008. A new means of transport is defined as a motorised land vehicle which is intended for the transport of persons or goods, which was supplied six months or less after the date of first entry into service, or which has travelled 6000 kilometres or less.
The vehicle's supply and acquisition in June 2008 is defined under Value Added Tax legislation as an intra-Community acquisition of goods on which VAT was chargeable at the date of supply. The date of the transport of the vehicle to Ireland did not affect the charge to VAT in the case in question. However, this tax only became payable at the time the relevant Vehicle Registration Tax liability arose, the non- payment of which resulted in the vehicle's seizure.
The compromise penalties offered for the release of the vehicle in this case are in line with normal administrative practice and are calculated by reference to the amount of VRT and VAT evaded and the length of the time the vehicle has been in the State. Payment of the compromise penalty is in lieu of forfeiture of the vehicle and legal proceedings. The Revenue Commissioners have already reviewed this case in the light of earlier representations and I am advised that they consider the release terms to be proportionate and a further review to be unwarranted.
Under Section 143 of the Finance Act 2001, a person can give notice in writing contesting the liability to forfeiture of anything that has been seized. Revenue considers that correspondence already received in this case constitutes such a notice. In such cases Revenue is legally obliged to initiate civil legal proceedings for the forfeiture and condemnation of the goods in question. In the absence of a settlement being otherwise arrived at, Revenue will initiate these proceedings, in which the court will adjudicate on the validity of the seizure action. The parties contesting the seizure and their legal representatives, if any, will be required to attend and give evidence at any such proceedings.