header-logo header-logo

19 November 2009 / Hartley Foster
Issue: 7394 / Categories: Features , EU
printer mail-detail

Burning bridges

Has the EU’s “carbon trading” market gone up in smoke? Hartley Foster investigates

Transfers of EUAs between taxable persons under the European Union’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading System (ETS) are treated as a supply of services for VAT purposes.

They are taxable where the recipient of those services is established. Given their high value and the fact that they can be easily traded in (lightly regulated) specialised markets, this makes the carbon trade market susceptible to what is known as “carousel” or “MTIC fraud”.

The origins of MTIC fraud

The fons et origo of MTIC fraud was the introduction of the EU’s internal market in 1993.

Completing the internal market became a political priority in the early 1980s. The EC Commission proposed that the “origin system” be introduced in relation to supplies between member states. This would involve charging VAT in, and at the rate applicable in, the country of origin of the goods and services. For this system to work effectively, rates of VAT would need to be approximated throughout the EC. For this

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll