Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 219
  1. #11
    mikef's Avatar
    mikef is offline Registered User
    Location : Chesham, Bucks
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    26,880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jfm View Post
    That most certainly would NOT make the boat VAT paid
    Why not?

  2. #12
    ari's Avatar
    ari is offline Registered User
    Location : South coast
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    2,722

    Default

    Because it's to another VAT registered company presumably?
    Ari

    ---------------------------------

    If a man speaks in a forest, and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong..?

  3. #13
    jfm's Avatar
    jfm is offline Registered User
    Location : London/Antibes
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    17,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikef View Post
    Why not?
    It depends on the facts, which we dont quite have in full:

    1. some boats were sold by Fairline to dealer with vat. Dealer recovers the VAT. Then (it appears) dealer records sale to end customer as Jersey-bound so nil VAT, even though customer was UK. Customer either gets no VAT invoice or one showing UK VAT on it, hopefully the latter as acbruce seems to have. But whatever the customer gets in this scenario the boat is VAT paid by virtue of the sale by a VAT-registered trader UK-to-UK, even though the VAT was fraudulently not paid over by dealer to HMRC. The earlier Fairline-to-dealer invoice has nothing to do with it

    2. Another boat seems to have been smuggled and a false invoice created to show it as VAT paid in its previous history. This boat is liable to VAT (importer/owner) and the first invoice from Fairline to first dealer has no bearing on its now-smuggled status

  4. #14
    stelican is offline Registered User
    Location : fareham hampshire
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jfm View Post
    It depends on the facts, which we dont quite have in full:

    1. some boats were sold by Fairline to dealer with vat. Dealer recovers the VAT. Then (it appears) dealer records sale to end customer as Jersey-bound so nil VAT, even though customer was UK. Customer either gets no VAT invoice or one showing UK VAT on it, hopefully the latter as acbruce seems to have. But whatever the customer gets in this scenario the boat is VAT paid by virtue of the sale by a VAT-registered trader UK-to-UK, even though the VAT was fraudulently not paid over by dealer to HMRC. The earlier Fairline-to-dealer invoice has nothing to do with it

    2. Another boat seems to have been smuggled and a false invoice created to show it as VAT paid in its previous history. This boat is liable to VAT (importer/owner) and the first invoice from Fairline to first dealer has no bearing on its now-smuggled status
    Maybe the vat was not invoiced by Fairline and the boats were sold to Fairline Channel Isles not the dealer in dorset who was a sub dealer

  5. #15
    mikef's Avatar
    mikef is offline Registered User
    Location : Chesham, Bucks
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    26,880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jfm View Post

    1. some boats were sold by Fairline to dealer with vat. Dealer recovers the VAT. Then (it appears) dealer records sale to end customer as Jersey-bound so nil VAT, even though customer was UK. Customer either gets no VAT invoice or one showing UK VAT on it, hopefully the latter as acbruce seems to have. But whatever the customer gets in this scenario the boat is VAT paid by virtue of the sale by a VAT-registered trader UK-to-UK, even though the VAT was fraudulently not paid over by dealer to HMRC. The earlier Fairline-to-dealer invoice has nothing to do with it
    Agreed we don't have the facts but I think it's safe to assume that Fairline PLC issued an invoice which included VAT to Fairline Dorset for supply of the boats. Assuming that Fairline Dorset paid the invoice in full and Fairline PLC correctly accounted for the VAT to HMRC, then surely a transaction has taken place for which VAT has been paid? The fact that the dealer sells the boats on to UK customers including VAT and records these sales as nil VAT transactions in his VAT return is surely immaterial in terms of whether the boats are considered VAT paid? Therefore obtaining the original invoice from Fairline PLC to Fairline Dorset is all the owners need to prove VAT status to subsequent buyers.
    I must say that this seems like a really bone headed form of VAT fraud by the dealer and how he could think he could get away with this with such large and easily identifiable assets is beyond me. He deserves to go to jail simply for being an idiot

  6. #16
    jfm's Avatar
    jfm is offline Registered User
    Location : London/Antibes
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    17,799

    Default

    Agreed we don't have the facts but I think it's safe to assume that Fairline PLC issued an invoice which included VAT to Fairline Dorset for supply of the boats. Yes Assuming that Fairline Dorset paid the invoice in full and Fairline PLC correctly accounted for the VAT to HMRC, then surely a transaction has taken place for which VAT has been paid? Yes but it is entirely possible for boats to become un-VAT paid subsequently eg export to CI The fact that the dealer sells the boats on to UK customers including VAT and records these sales as nil VAT transactions in his VAT return - I don't think he did that. I think he recorded the 6 boats as zero-VATable sales in his dealings with HMRC but recorded them as 17.5% VATable sales in dealings with his UK customers so collecting the VAT cash but he did not hand over the cash to HMRC becuase he told HMRC he had sold the boats export to CI - is surely immaterial in terms of whether the boats are considered VAT paid? It is VERY material. The fact these boats were sold B2C by a UK VAT registered boat seller is precisely what makes them VAT paid Therefore obtaining the original invoice from Fairline PLC to Fairline Dorset is all the owners need to prove VAT status to subsequent buyers. No, for the reasons above. Doesn't prove a boat isn't smuggled and as a buyer if this is the only VAT invoice you get you ought to be suspiciuous as to whyI must say that this seems like a really bone headed form of VAT fraud by the dealer and how he could think he could get away with this with such large and easily identifiable assets is beyond me. He deserves to go to jail simply for being an idiot Agreed!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    62

    Default

    I know I'm surrounded by other c-level officers when even forum posts get red-lined

  8. #18
    stelican is offline Registered User
    Location : fareham hampshire
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jfm View Post
    Agreed we don't have the facts but I think it's safe to assume that Fairline PLC issued an invoice which included VAT to Fairline Dorset for supply of the boats. Yes Assuming that Fairline Dorset paid the invoice in full and Fairline PLC correctly accounted for the VAT to HMRC, then surely a transaction has taken place for which VAT has been paid? Yes but it is entirely possible for boats to become un-VAT paid subsequently eg export to CI The fact that the dealer sells the boats on to UK customers including VAT and records these sales as nil VAT transactions in his VAT return - I don't think he did that. I think he recorded the 6 boats as zero-VATable sales in his dealings with HMRC but recorded them as 17.5% VATable sales in dealings with his UK customers so collecting the VAT cash but he did not hand over the cash to HMRC becuase he told HMRC he had sold the boats export to CI - is surely immaterial in terms of whether the boats are considered VAT paid? It is VERY material. The fact these boats were sold B2C by a UK VAT registered boat seller is precisely what makes them VAT paid Therefore obtaining the original invoice from Fairline PLC to Fairline Dorset is all the owners need to prove VAT status to subsequent buyers. No, for the reasons above. Doesn't prove a boat isn't smuggled and as a buyer if this is the only VAT invoice you get you ought to be suspiciuous as to whyI must say that this seems like a really bone headed form of VAT fraud by the dealer and how he could think he could get away with this with such large and easily identifiable assets is beyond me. He deserves to go to jail simply for being an idiot Agreed!
    Fairline would probably not invoice a sub dealer most likely invoiced C.I ex vat
    Boats could be assumed to be in transit to C.I

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7

    Default Know the person Know the facts

    Quote Originally Posted by beejay190 View Post
    From what has been said in other posts i understand that this lowlife was not a broker but rather was trading as a principal.
    I am just wondering if you know the accused beejay or are you just enjoying kicking someone who is down? It is people like yourself that should hold their heads in shame for using such phrases. As regards for your word "low life" I assume that speak on some authority on subject?

  10. #20
    PaulGooch's Avatar
    PaulGooch is offline Registered User
    Location : Home = Norfolk, Boat = The Wash
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JFJ View Post
    I am just wondering if you know the accused beejay or are you just enjoying kicking someone who is down? It is people like yourself that should hold their heads in shame for using such phrases. As regards for your word "low life" I assume that speak on some authority on subject?
    Only reason he's "down" is because he got sent down, for stealing £210,000 of VAT money he'd collected.

    How does stealing £210,000 NOT make him a low life ?

    It what way are you related to him ?
    Jeanneau Merry Fisher 805 For Sale. www.gooch.co.uk

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •