The Effects of Counterfeit Products

A counterfeit good is an item that is imitated, commonly by another “genuine” item. Counterfeit products are usually formed with the intention to recognize the considerable value of the duplicated product. Counterfeiting is a crucial issue that has grown to four times its size. In the past ten years, the damage of counterfeit has cost the United States over 200 billion dollars. The extraordinary development of counterfeiting and the manufacturing of copied products packaged with other labels, is an urgent economic problem that effects social and political problems too.

Schemes that produce profit such as” prostitution, drug dealing, pyramid schemes and the sale of counterfeit goods” (Zyl, 2011) have existed everywhere throughout the years. Demands on asking for more money and additionally the use of the “Value Added Tax” on certain business deals has developed into a quarrelsome concern. In a legal dispute over the high court of appeal MP Finance Group CC in Liquidation versus CSARS governed that the money invested taken by a taxpayer in against the law will be subject to tax on the taxpayers’ plate. Where the main points appear, nevertheless, whether the choice that in the MP Finance case can further be used to decide the amount produced Value Added Tax liability of the Value Added Tax merchants. In addition, does the choice in the MP Finance have the extensive effect that “enterprises” administering their companies by illegal matters should in-list as Value Added Tax merchants? Conclusively, should a prostitute or an illegal drug trafficker in counterfeit goods in list as a Value Added Tax merchant and later record the amount produced in Value Added Tax. Thus, can the prostitute or an illegal drug trafficker in counterfeit goo...

... middle of paper ...

...mpartially. (finish ending to paragraph)

...Another Paragraph...

In the case of MP Finance Group CC in Liquidation versus CSARS, the judicial system known as the Supreme Court of Appeal eventually finished on the argument of the tax collection of illegal earnings and has confidently removed any likely beliefs. (finish paragraph)

Conclusion

To conclude, the necessity of “received by” as explained by the judicial system can be said to equal to something that was accepted by the individual paying the taxes for his or her own advantage. The question comes to the mind whether the understanding by the judicial system of “received by” for reasons of illegal earnings can be widespread to mean “for consideration” for the Value Added Tax meanings. Therefore a contrast may be considered to be drawn between the taxed plan of the “Income Tax Act” and the “Value Added Tax Act”