Gludy
regular
Reged: 19/08/2001
Posts: 6704
Loc: Brecon, Wales
|
|
It seems that the use of red for commercial users is not under threat - many large boats are coded and available for charter - so lets take such a boat with say 20% private use and 80% charter use - what fuel pump would be used if red is stopped for pleasure boaters but not for commercial users?
Is it not absurd that a rib taking say 14 passengers around the coast on pleasure trips is commercial hence can use red - a charter boat taking executives for a ride is commercial and can use red but the same boat being used for your own pleasure would not be able to use red? What do you do - suck the red out and replace with white diesel?
Even a narrow definition of commercial as just say 'fishing' can be difficult - a charter boat that allows some fishing is surely a fishing boat? A boat taking out 6 anglers pleasure fishing for the day would surely be commercial.
So has anyone any idea how red will be protected for 'commercial vessels' - in other words what is a commercial vessel? How will those who dispense the fuel know what is commercial and what is not?
It seems totally absurd to claim that the rich have been hit when in practice an 80 foot charter boat at £7k per day uses red whilst a 25 foot power boat is banned from using it.
--------------------
Paul
St Francis 50 Cat
My Multihull Forum
|
jrb1978
regular
Reged: 04/04/2005
Posts: 7924
Loc: ality Unknown
|
|
Iwould imagine that all vessels would use white diesel, regardless of their activity. The 'over tax' paid on the white diesel would then be claimed back through operating taxes.
I.e. a fishing vessel that is 100% commercial can claim the appropriate tax relief on 100% of diesel used. Your example of a large MoBo which is used for charter work 80% of the time can only claim relief on 80% of fuel used in the year.
Either that, or a direct % against profits made from the commercial activity. In a way, this make more sense, as if the Red is not available anywhere, it cannot be used for other vehicles such as cars and vans.
--------------------
|
Lionel
regular
Reged: 16/09/2005
Posts: 35
Loc: Petworth, West Sussex
|
|
If that were to come in into effect, then one can envisage a loophole being created.
Something on the lines of, you would charter your boat from a company you are a director of, or set it up in a pension fund if next years rules allow it. You would pay the comapny to hire the boat at a nominal fee, the company includes fuel in its price and thus, they claim back the refund. Messy but possibly worth a bit more thought.
|
steverow
regular
Reged: 13/12/2002
Posts: 1273
Loc: Midlands UK. Boat South Wales
|
|
The whole thing is a real mess and if the government has any sense they will leave well alone.
Take the issue of heating fuel used in your average eberspacher/webasto...
If red diesel is abolished for marine use, then what about heating issues...you can legally use red at home for your oil fired heating, so why penalise the average boatowner/livaboard...it's domestic fuel.
I doubt whether fitting separate tanks is viable in the majority of boats, but hey if you did, how would they know which fuel was being used for main engines.
So the government would have to abolish domestic heating oil entirely for any ban on marine diesel to be effective.
Another issue is that of older marine engines such as the Perkins amongst others.
These are specifically designed to run on red diesel or even heavier heating oil.
They will not run well on modern Road diesel because it is thinner and has less lubricating properties. This is because they were originally designed as generating and agricultural engines, specificially to use heavier diesel oils.
So every 50 hours or less I would have to be changing the lift pump and metering unit seals...not a job that can be done at sea in an emergency, so has significant safety aspects.
Perkins would have, I understand, no plans to modify the seals for the older engines as the market is just not big enough...so we're stuck on that one, or we will be ..big time if mgo/red goes.
Add these to the logistic and distribution issues, the absurdity of the commecial issues, which allow people to run leisure boats that are commercial in name only, and the grossly unfair situation that would bring about...then you have a recipe for
a complete mess in the marine world.
One thing is for sure...the fuel mustn't change. How they tax it is something else...but to change the fuel from red to derv would be a complete disaster.
Steve.
--------------------
Steve
Pegasus Album
|
Admiral
regular
Reged: 14/03/2004
Posts: 69
Loc: Cornwall
|
|
I reckon Jezbanks has got it right. This system operates as far as commercial road vehicles are concerned but just means a lot more paperwork for the office. The governmint have obviously worked out how much extra tax they are going to get so I doubt they will drop it now!
|
Gludy
regular
Reged: 19/08/2001
Posts: 6704
Loc: Brecon, Wales
|
|
I agree that the goverment will probably not drop it but any reasonable calculation would show a fall in total tax revenue so I do not think the governemnt will be doing this to raise tax.
--------------------
Paul
St Francis 50 Cat
My Multihull Forum
|
Gludy
regular
Reged: 19/08/2001
Posts: 6704
Loc: Brecon, Wales
|
|
Jezbanks - that gets round the mwthod of collection - a claim back system. That would draw a lot more capital out of the supplier and the customer - in effect depositing a sum with the government but it could be made to work. In fact commercial boats now can claim back their petrol duty as well as the vat - even on red today.
However, it still means that you have tha abusdity of a charter boat going out on its executive entertainment trip on the equivalent of red, as is the small fishing boat taking out 6 anglers but the same boats being used to do the same pleasure things for yourself would be taxed to the hilt. Many large boats are coded charter boats. So pleasure for yourself is taxed the same pleasure that you hire is not taxed! That is absurd.
--------------------
Paul
St Francis 50 Cat
My Multihull Forum
|
jrb1978
regular
Reged: 04/04/2005
Posts: 7924
Loc: ality Unknown
|
|
I completely agree with you, an trust me , I am nor a supporter or an implementer of this way of thinking - I meerly think it is a solution the government may have considered and it gets around the arguement originally posted in this thread.
On the second point, when have you ever known our government to be logical or fair - especially highwayman Brown?
|
Gludy
regular
Reged: 19/08/2001
Posts: 6704
Loc: Brecon, Wales
|
|
No - I have never known logic to get in the way of using their powers to mess up an industry .... none of them, it seems, have ever had to run a business ... they seem to be dedicated politicians from university who can tell us how to run the world having never experienced it themselves.
I wish I did not agree with you but I do.
I think that the worst will happen on this issue - I do not think they have done other than pay lip service to the trade/consumer lobbying - after all it is now September and still no application for an extension .......
--------------------
Paul
St Francis 50 Cat
My Multihull Forum
|
Scaramoosh
regular
Reged: 21/06/2004
Posts: 198
Loc: Hampshire
|
|
Surely you are mixing up 2 different issues.
1) Derrogation of tax. Let it go, it means nothing at todays oil prices. What full harmonisation will require is that you cant sell fuel below the harmonised price accross the EU. I can't remember the exact number but its 20 something pence (23.2??) per litre. I don't believe any of us will worry if we have to pay say 30 pence / litre.
2) Road Tax DERV, this is where we should be fighting, tax marine fuel yes but not a road prices as the surface of the sea doesn't need retarmacing every few years.
So we can loose the derrogation and still pay say 30p per litre if the tax regime is sensible.
--------------------
Scaramoosh, Scaramoosh successor to Phandango (with apologies to Queen)
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
