A counterfeit good is an item that is imitated, commonly from another “original” item. Counterfeit products are usually made with the intent to recognize the significant value of the duplicate product. Counterfeiting is a crucial problem that has grown to four times its size. In the last ten years, the damage caused by counterfeiting 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 which also has repercussions on social and political problems. Profit-producing schemes such as “prostitution, drug dealing, pyramid schemes and the sale of counterfeit goods” (Zyl, 2011) have existed everywhere over the years. Claims of asking for more money and also the use of “value added tax” for certain deals have become a contentious concern. In a legal dispute in the High Court of Appeal MP Finance Group CC in Liquidation v CSARS has ruled that invested money taken from a taxpayer against the law will be subject to tax on the taxpayers' plate. The main question however is whether the choice in the MP Finance case can be further used to decide the product amount subject to VAT traders' value added tax. Furthermore, does the choice in the MP Finance have the extended effect that “businesses” who administer their companies for illegal matters should be listed as value added tax traders? In conclusion, a prostitute or illegal drug trafficker of counterfeit goods should be listed as a value added tax trader and subsequently register the amount produced in value added tax. So, the prostitute or illegal drug trafficker can sell counterfeit substances... middle of paper... in a biased way. (end of paragraph)...Another paragraph...In the case of MP Finance Group CC in Liquidation v. CSARS, the judicial system known as the Supreme Court of Appeal finally concluded with the issue of collecting tax on illegal earnings and confidently removed every probable belief. (end of paragraph)ConclusionTo conclude, it can be said that the need for “received by” as explained by the judicial system equates to something that has been accepted by the individual who pays taxes for his own benefit. The question arises whether the judicial system's interpretation of “received by” for the purpose of illegal gain can be disseminated to mean “for consideration” under value added tax. It can therefore be assumed that a contrast can be made between the taxed plan of the "Income Tax Law" and the "Value Added Tax Law"”.”