MBM red diesel campaignA forum dedicated to Motor Boats Monthly's forthcoming Red Alert campaign for the retention of the current rate of duty on UK-supplied marine diesel. Read more here.
Please dont shoot the messenger I was sent a copy of this quote. Its nothing we didnt already know but its official
The BMF, RYA and IWA are pleased to provide an update on how the end of the derogation will be implemented as of 1 November 2008.
Introduction
We have been working closely with HM Revenue & Customs since early 2007 to produce a pragmatic and sensible solution to the implementation of the end of the derogation. Prior to that, from 2003, we successfully lobbied Government to seek the retention of the derogation but this was rejected by the European Commission in favour of its tax harmonisation agenda.
Once it was confirmed that the derogation had to come to an end, our key concerns were to:
· Secure the continued availability of diesel at the waterside
· Minimise the impact on the boater and industry
· Avoid safety and environmental implications of transporting fuel by hand
In February of this year, when HMRC published its outline proposals, we were pleased to see that our efforts had succeeded and that all of these concerns had been taken into account, particularly by allowing recreational boaters to continue to use red diesel. Since then, we have been endeavouring to ensure that the detail of HMRC’s proposals is as simple and as effective as possible.
Successful Co-operation
The BMF, RYA, IWA and HMRC all agree that it was disappointing that the derogation was not renewed by the European Commission, despite what we all considered to be a very strong case. We also all agreed that the end of the derogation presented considerable difficulties in terms of implementation. We are very pleased, however, that the BMF, RYA, IWA and HMRC have been able to work together successfully on behalf of the industry and recreational boaters. HMRC has been very receptive to the concerns of suppliers and users and has managed the consultation process well.
HMRC Conclusions
· HMRC accepted the overwhelming wish of both suppliers and users that red diesel should continue to be available to recreational boaters.
· The loss of the derogation will only affect fuel used for propulsion, which will be subject to the full rate of duty.
· Red diesel at the rebated rate will continue to be available for domestic purposes, such as heating and lighting.
How will it work?
1. When recreational boaters buy diesel for their craft, they will need to make a declaration to the supplier if they intend the fuel to be used for propelling a private pleasure craft.
2. The recreational boater will also declare what percentage of the fuel will be used for propulsion (as opposed to domestic purposes such as heating and lighting).
How will the boater work out what percentage of fuel they intend to use for propulsion?
HMRC has understood our arguments about the potential difficulties for fuel suppliers in calculating duty and VAT – in particular for the smaller operators – when faced with customers claiming different percentages of fuel used for propulsion. HMRC also appreciates the concerns of users about the difficulty of calculating and apportioning their own intended usage accurately and their worries about unintentionally making an inaccurate declaration. However, the EU Energy Products Directive specifically refers to ‘fuel for the purposes of navigation’ (which is reflected in UK law as ‘fuel for propelling’), so there is no legal basis for imposing a single standard apportionment to be applied universally that pays no regard to actual usage for propulsion.
HMRC has therefore confirmed to the BMF, RYA, and IWA that their advice on this issue is as follows:
Q. What will be the allowance for fuel used on boats for heating and lighting?
A. There is no fixed allowance. It is for the purchaser to declare the percentage of fuel used for propulsion. However, analysis by both the industry and HMRC suggests that a split of 60% for propulsion and 40% for domestic use (heating, cooking etc) probably reflects most people’s use and it is therefore likely that many users will declare such an apportionment. This will make it easier for suppliers (known as Registered Dealers in Controlled Oils) to work out additional duty and VAT. However, where a purchaser knows that their propulsion use may be more or less than the above apportionment split or a craft clearly has no domestic use, then they must declare their actual intended usage.
Q. What about residential boat owners where nearly all fuel is for domestic purposes – what can they declare?
A. We have recognised the status of residential boat owners whose primary residence is their boat. Some of these will be at fixed moorings or move just a very short distance along the towpath from permanent moorings. If they live aboard the craft permanently and hold certain documentation, such as a Houseboat Licence, Residential Mooring Licence, Council Tax Bill in respect of the mooring, or other peripheral documentation, invoices or bills which provides proof of permanent residency, they may purchase all their fuel at the rebated rate (as if they were a commercial vessel). They will still be required to make and sign a declaration saying that 0% of the fuel is for propelling purposes. It will be the responsibility of the declarant to ensure that they hold the requisite documentation should HMRC wish to check the validity of the declaration made in these circumstances. Continuous cruisers may not declare 0% under these arrangements, even if they reside permanently on their craft, they must declare their actual intended usage for propulsion.
Registered Dealers in Controlled Oils (RDCO) will need to account to HMRC for the additional duty received from recreational boaters. RDCOs already owe a general duty of care to ensure that they only make supplies of controlled oil for legitimate uses.
Further Information
We will continue to work with HMRC to provide support to suppliers and users over the next few months. RYA and IWA will provide guidance to their members and the BMF will offer an information service for industry. HMRC has confirmed that it will provide supplementary guidance to RDCOs and that its emphasis as the new measures bed in will be to help and advise suppliers and users to get things right.
Still don't see how this is good news, theres a lot of boats out there with no domestic use whatsoever. I shall probably just go down the local garage and get some quality stuff for a better price anyway.
the main reason is because for every 100 lts you put in you pay £1.20 for 60 lts and 70p for the 40lts overall it works out at £1 a lt. We were expecting to pay £1.20 so its 20p a lt cheaper and not doubled.
I think we should be happy with this considering it could have been worse.
in an ideal world it should be 70p or the 40p it was last yr but sh*t happens
But my domestic consumption is zero, unless you count heating water in the calorifier but there's no way 40% of my consumption is heating that, i'd be surprised if it was 0.5%. So what moraly am I supposed to declare when I fill up? It might be HMCE are trying to do the right thing, but they have put enough clause's in there to say you can't deliberately make a blatantly false declaration, so basicaly it's bollox unless I'm missing something [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] And the last time I filled up it was 86ppl (Shepperton River Thames) so the final price even 60/40 will be close to forecourt prices anyway.
Chris_d as I understand it battery charging is domestic. Assuming that you have 2x 55A alternators at 12V then you are capable of making 1.3kW to go back into your batteries. Or look at it as Ah, if you have 2 x 110Ah batteries so a real capacity of about 130Ah you need to top that up. I'd guess that on river speeds you are looking at 2-4 hours engine time to top that up. If you wanted to get very picky then yes, I gather that domestic hot water production is at reduced rate. Now a 100l tank has 100kg of water. from 20deg to 70deg so 50deg temp rise, specific heat of water determines energy input as domestic and so forth.
__________________
Two beers please, my friend is paying.
Yes I know the theory, maybe i'm just being dim but it doesn't say anywhere that "indirect" consumption for domestic use is allowed. The inference is its that only diesel burnt in Eberspachers, Generators or cookers etc... Diesel burnt in the engines is for propulsion even though they charge the batteries and heat the water, but theres still no way you can get anywhere near 40%. Are they really going to allow a diesel powered 20ft sports cuddy to claim 60/40 for his domestic cabin lighting? I must have missed the nudge or the wink.
>>>
Yes I know the theory, maybe i'm just being dim but it doesn't say anywhere that "indirect" consumption for domestic use is allowed
>>>
Does it say anywhere that it is forbidden? Some of this has come about by representations from liveaboards who may well run engines while not moving in order to make hot water, electricity etc, even from mains output engine driven alternators.
__________________
Two beers please, my friend is paying.
Sounds like the usual mealy mouthed hand wringing rubbish we,ve come to expect from the RYA over EU legislation. Same story with the RCD directive, acceptance of the ICC etc.Beaurocrats to a man. Its bad news for everyone particularly motor boaters. Looks like us raggies will have to go back to the traditional way of doing things along this stretch of coast. Sailing everywere and throwing revenue men off of cliffs or running them out of town.
Thanks for the update. This is disappointing as MBM mag just dropped through my door with an article ”Red Diesel Reprieve?” Suggesting that HMRC would charge a flat rate of 60/40 as a self-declaration scheme would be “costly and open to abuse and raises the prospect of on water inspections of fuel receipts by customs agents.”
When I leave the Thames to cruise to the Solent I will fill up in Ramsgate and 3 days later I will fill up again at Port Solent. The paper trail and my receipt will indicate that 80 gallons of the 200 I took on in Ramsgate would have been used for heating my boat in August in just 3 days……Penny dropped?
There is nothing here for the motor boater that goes somewhere in his boat, it is a bit late foe the RYA to realize this. Good for the IWA to fight for its member, many of whom live on board, good for the aviation lobby getting a minimum increase for its members good for the BMF fighting to keep red diesel for its members but the RYA have not looked after my interest.
Just as a footnote 398 gallons to go from Thames to Solent and back in my old semi-displacement trawler yacht at about 10 knots next years fuel bill for same trip £2400
We have all been let down by the RYA.
I think there is very much something here for the motorboater that goes places. The article in October's MBM was written a week before the news broke that HMRC accepts that 60/40 is representative of most people's diesel use. This word is critical.
To apply a flat 60/40 split across the board and make it uniform would contravene EU law. However, what HMRC have done is give a nod to the vendors and suppliers to charge a flat 60/40 rate at the pump.
The off the record chat from the boat show is this: for such an insignificant revenue gain, HMRC are extremely unlikely to enforce this, meaning more or less everyone with a diesel boat, no matter its actual split of domestic and propulsion diesel, will be able to fill up with 60/40. They accept that there is a vast number of boats out there, all using diesel for different things that is almost impossible to quantify.
The vendor will be well within his rights to only charge two rates at the pump, as any more than that and the paperwork will become overly burdensome (as if it's not already!). So theoretically, he will be able to supply commercial users at the rebated rate and leisure users at the 60/40 rate - and that is it.
The hope is that this 60/40 split will become so presumptive that it's not even asked at the pump. It will be a flat rate, just not according to the law.
It's not ideal, as the price will still jump. But it's a thousand times better than you having to keep a log of your exact fuel usage, then going to the pump and making a unique declaration, only for the vendor to have to do the maths, and then present HMRC with thousands of declarations stating different apportionments. A complete headache for all concerned.
This is simply the path of least resistance. We'll be following this up at length in the November issue.
Stuart , Well that is certainly a bit of a u-turn. A week ago, a fixed 60/40 flat allowance was described in MBM as “far better than the self declaration scheme” as such a system “would be costly and open to abuse and raises the prospect of on-water inspections of fuel receipts by Customs agents”. I agree with those sentiments and would have welcomed a fixed allowance, as I would not be required to commit fraud every time I fuel up. I expect you will have to fuel ‘Blue Fin’ every 2 or 3 days when on the cruises, how do you propose to declare your usage?
You state EU law stops us having a fixed rate applied, was this not apparent a week ago? I was told 3 months ago by the ATYC that HMRC were not prepared to accept self-declaration and were working towards a fixed proportion.
It seems to me that quoting EU law always provides an excuse not to do something. I do know that EU law required us to apply a minimum of 21 ppl tax to our marine fuel. This quickly became a non-starter, why? Because the law states, “we cannot charge a different tax on the same fuel” where does it state that? In addition, why then are we proposing to charge two different rates of tax on red diesel? Then the law states, “We cannot charge a different fuel tax than that which we charge on the road.” Where does it state this? MBM published a table of fuel charges for EU members and three countries charged at least 25ppl less for their marine fuel than they did for road fuel. Perhaps MBM could use its resources to verify that some of these convenient laws exist and if they do, could they be interpreted differently.
If the HMRC really wanted to help the boater, all they had to do was accept that red diesel is sufficiently different to white diesel to justify taxing it at the minimum EU rate, they could have used the facts published by MBM to this end. As you know this is what they did for the leisure aviators. Whether it is more different or less different should not matter if there is, as you suggest, a will to bend the rules to find a compliant solution. .The compliant solution is (and always was) to add 11ppl to the tax that we currently charge. No paperwork, no fraud, no additional work for HMRC. Perhaps if the RYA had fought for this instead of deferring to its members who wrote saying that the RYA should not campaign to keep a reduced tax, we could be instigating a sensible solution on the 1st November instead of well meaning but flawed legislation that may leave the boater vulnerable to prosecution. The Dutch authorities expect to revert to fining UK boats carrying red diesel after 1 Nov. Hopefully UK government will remember to inform the EU that this remains legal, but I do not think much of our chances of convincing then that it is legal that 40% of the fuel onboard has been taxed at less than the EU minimum.
After November 1st, our fuel tax will forever be linked to road fuel and the automatic fuel escalator designed to limit road use. This administration may be prepared to turn a blind eye to some creative declarations, but will the next?
While we haven't got an official 60/40 split, we have the next best thing - an understanding from HMRC that they won't chase down people declaring such a proportion.
This is as close to official as you can get without breaking EU law. We didn't quite appreciate the legal implications when we wrote the story as it was done at the last possible moment after various sources gave us the nod that 60/40 was on the cards.
So in the end, the story hasn't really changed. 60/40 is the result, albeit unofficially, and we should be chuffed. There's be no annoying paperwork for the boater, and no-one will be committing fraud as the Govt accepts that most people's use is 60/40.
All the things you mention about private aviators, minimum EU duty and harmonisation with road fuel is all stuff I've been emailing, phoning, meeting, harassing HMRC staff about for three years. I could go into it here, but I'd be writing for the next hour, and it's the weekend and I don't fancy it. Email me at stewart_campbell@ipcmedia.com on Monday if you want.
We're not sure what we're going to do about Blue Fin just yet. It's still being discussed.
The Holland angle is one we're pursuing. We're hoping to get some confirmation from HMRC that they've informed their Dutch counterparts of this news.
Congratulations on your "this is how it is " post - I couldn't agree more.
How people with any regard for powerboating can conclude that this is a good deal is beyond me.
All that the gov't needed to do to comply with the EU, was charge the 21p minimum tax. However, our pseudo representatives sold us out by not fighting on this basis.
I've left the RYA because of it and hope many others do the same - their performance on this matter has been abject.
>>>
This administration may be prepared to turn a blind eye to some creative declarations, but will the next?
>>>
I would hope that the next adminsitration will be far less driven by the blind politics of envy that drives this lot to squeeze every penny out of anyone who has any money not given by The State. Maybe even with the cojones to say to Brussels "this is how it works here, put up or shut up".
__________________
Two beers please, my friend is paying.
My MP said "he recognises the the contribution the boating industry makes to the UK economy and to the quality of life of his constituants but the energy products directive states that we cannot charge a different amount of tax on the same fuel so we will have to charge the full road fuel tax"
He is the Conservative party treasury spokesman!
My MP said "he recognises the the contribution the boating industry makes to the UK economy and to the quality of life of his constituants but the energy products directive states that we cannot charge a different amount of tax on the same fuel so we will have to charge the full road fuel tax"
He is the Conservative party treasury spokesman!
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you legally use red diesel in your car?
No.
So how can it be the same fuel ? [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
Brian
__________________ Kddpowercentre designers and purveyors of fine charging systems for 30 years.
Powercentre spares and help line
"Maybe even with the cojones to say to Brussels "this is how it works here, put up or shut up".
Andrew don't hold you breath!
I received the following response from my MP.
" I recognised the contribution that the boating industry makes to the UK economy and the quality of life of many people but the energy products directive does not allow different rates of duty to be charged on the same type of fuel so marine diesel will have to be charged at the road fuel rate.
My MP is the Conservative party treasury spokesman.
"It also generally has a higher sulphur content than "road" diesel - so again "how can it be the same fuel?"
Yes, higher sulpher lower Cetain and a different colour even a different BS number this info published in MBM article.
MBM also published a table of EU fuel charges that showed 3 EU countries charging about 25ppl less for marine diesel than roadside fuel see 'Red Alert. I have read many comments in MBM stating that the EU minimum should be applied and they campaigned along with the RYA to keep the derrogation which I thought was to keep a reduced rate of tax on marine diesel.
I have never understood why the price was no longer the issue for the RYA after the loss of the derrogation.
I have never understood why the price was no longer the issue for the RYA after the loss of the derrogation.
[/ QUOTE ]
I really wish I had kept it but I'm sure one of the newsletters I got actually said that the majority of their members were in favour of price rises on enviromental grounds.
I cancelled my membership last year and upgraded to Governor level of the RNLI with the money. A lot better place to spend my hard earned I think.
>>>
I really wish I had kept it but I'm sure one of the newsletters I got actually said that the majority of their members were in favour of price rises on enviromental grounds.
>>>
It may even be in this thread. Think about the "Y" bit. An organisation that is failing its "fit for purpose" test, unless its purpose is clearly defined as:-
"To promote the higher ends of (Solent-based) yacht racing to the detriment of all other forms of boating"
__________________
Two beers please, my friend is paying.
This is the end of the saga and we have a pragmatic decision from HMRC, so I think the important thing is just to get out there and enjoy our boating.”
say no more in other words tough s**t like it or lump it.
At the risk of being shot down in flames, I think our boating organisations should be congratulated. The EU minimum was never on the cards. The EU classes both boat diesel and road diesel as 'gas oil'. The Energy Products Directive outlaws two different rates of duty for the same fuel. To us, they're different fuels, but to the EU, it's all the same stuff.
Now consider also that HMRC was under no obligation to even give us this 40% allowance. They could have said 100% full duty, and told us to get on with it. That they did is credit to the behind-the-scenes work done by the RYA, BMF and IWA. Believe it or not, these three do pack a punch in Parliament, and as a result, we have what can be described as a generous split in domestic use and propulsion fuel.
Having said all that, any hike in diesel prices is bad. But if you're pragmatic, you have to acknowledge that, given the above, this is as good a result as we could have hoped for.
Well said!
£1.07 per litre is a lot better than £1.30 per litre which is what I was expecting.
Have to say though the RYA seems mainly interested in racing sailing boats (not that theres anything wrong with that)
But I for one was very happy and relived to hear about the 60/40
All we need to do know is educate the fuel vendors as one told me on Sunday that as I don't have a generator I don't qualify!!
__________________
"See the rainbow not the rain" [/i]
I would add that they (the Gov) know that this solution will not make them friends (voters) amongst boaters who will still see a large increase in the cost of their pastime AND it will cause them no end of grief with our near maritime neighbours who will inevitably take a pop from time to time by picking on boats with red in their tanks DESPITE the net duty paid being significantly above that charged by their own administration.
I believe the result is a good compromise; no one trying to argue that 60/40 is a bad result for cruising craft is going to get much success in any bar I frequent.
Oh - and I do have a big Eber in my little 7.8 metre planning craft........
“At the risk of being shot down in flames, I think our boating organisations should be congratulated.”
Stewart, Methinks you protest too much!
The RYA lost my subscription and support when I was told by the RYA Government spokesman that they received many letters from their sailing members arguing that they should not campaign to keep a reduced tax on marine fuel and that their committee decided not to campaign, after the loss of the derogation, for a reduced tax.
I think therefore, that any 11th hour change, providing a loophole for SOME leisure boaters to reduce the total amount of tax paid on fuel, should not be credited to the RYA, indeed you said in your Red diesel reprieve? article that it was the BMF that was locked in talks with HMRC.
I asked the editor why MBM would not be campaigning alongside PBO to limit the tax increase to the EU minimum and was told that the EDP stops us charging a different rate for the same fuel. PBO continued to campaign to the last and in spite of letters from some of their sailing members. When HMRC said we should keep red, it seemed to PBO that all that was required was to have a commercial rate and a 21 p rate.
As I have said in a previous post, the existence of these convenient laws needed to be verified and tested to see if there could be a different interpretation. It seems that sister publications MBM and PBO managed to interpret the same rules differently and HRMC did not originally understand that a fixed flat rate split would be illegal. Without the RYA campaigning on price, the motor boater had no voice. The BMF and IWA had different agendas and were largely successful although the RCDO’s will not like a system that requires tax to be calculated on each fuel sale and livaboards could not be deprived of their domestic fuel anyway.
I am sure that this is not the end of the story, as I cannot see why EU countries will accept that 40% of the red diesel in our tanks does not have the minimum duty paid on it. We have run out of time to get a sensible law instigated.
I know that the industry is now in damage limitation mode (probably always has been) and wants to emphasis how much worse it could have been, but I would ask you to let the RYA do their own backslapping.
-------------------
I believe the result is a good compromise; no one trying to argue that 60/40 is a bad result for cruising craft .....
-------------------
Unfortunately it will be much more difficult for cruising motor boats to justify 40% of its fuel for domestic use as the audit trail will show that a boat refueling every 3 or 4 days cannot possibly be using 40% of fuel for heating.
Of course not, but you are allowed to declare 60/40 so whats the problem?
problem is that if you know that 40% is not being used for heating, you are required to declare the correct propulsion use and pay the fuel duty rate. A flat fixed 60/40 rate would have been ok, but that is not what we have got.
The one report by the RYA chap I read said it was thought by HMG to be a resonable max, claims above could not be justified. So you claim your split, upto that figure that you think you can justifiy if asked. He also said boats based in marinas would find it hard to claim rebate, presummabley as they are plugged into the mains. So light, heat, battery charging, fridge, cooking and TV comes down a wire.
No genny, no heater, so one thing I do not have worry about.
Brian
__________________ Kddpowercentre designers and purveyors of fine charging systems for 30 years.
Powercentre spares and help line
The HMRC will say they think 60/40 will be most people's usage but you must declare your correct usage. Stewart interprets this as nobody is going to check if you declare at the 60/40 rate.... not quite the same thing. I am of a generation that believes that tax laws are written to avoid ambiguities and whilst i am as keen as the next man to take advantage of a loophole, I know that with a audit trail, I am a mouse click away from a prosecution if I declare 40% of my fuel was used for heating in 3 days.
Stewart said MBM were still considering how they will declare their fuel usage on 'Blue Finn' (MBM's boat) so maybe he is not quite as confident as he sounds.
Bit of a conundrum then?
Me, I'm going 60/40, remember no receipts have to be kept and whilst I'm not trying to find a loop hole or diddle the tax man, the way I see it is, as I have previously said, declare 60/40 and no questions will be asked.
I am sure I am not alone in this assumption and would appreciate more information or opinions.
__________________
"See the rainbow not the rain" [/i]
I can't go into specifics (off the record, etc...), but I can assure you that my interpretation of HMRC's guidance is accurate.
Some points:
You will not have to keep records if you fill up with 60/40 (unless you're travelling overseas, when it would be smart to be able to prove you bought your fuel in the UK).
The method of declaration is incredibly easy. You can make the declaration on the back of a fag packet if you like, depending on the whims of the vendor, who then sticks this declaration in his records. The declaration is not sent to HMRC, but may be seen during the vendor's regular audit.
The fuel vendor will <u>not</u> be responsible for making sure the declarations are accurate. And they are not punishable for supplying fuel to a boater that makes an inaccurate declaration.
The only uncertainty over Blue Fin is whether she can be classified as a commercial craft. If it's decided that she's not, then we'll absolutely be filling up with 60/40 fuel.
I can't stress this enough: This is a headache for HMRC. They know it's almost impossible to measure how much diesel is used for different applications. They've chosen the path of least resistance and will not be chasing down people that declare 60/40.
One caveat, however: The above is based on conversations I've had with people close to the negotiations, and is the ideal outcome for all concerned. The early stages of the transition may be a bit bumpy, and the result outlined here may take some time to become the norm.
Stewart
P.S. More info in November's MBM (Had to get the plug in).
[ QUOTE ]
Bit of a conundrum then?
Me, I'm going 60/40, remember no receipts have to be kept and whilst I'm not trying to find a loop hole or diddle the tax man, the way I see it is, as I have previously said, declare 60/40 and no questions will be asked.
I am sure I am not alone in this assumption and would appreciate more information or opinions.
[/ QUOTE ]
All we have to date is the press release, I've not had anything further (though was promised the official word when released), and one dealer I asked over the weekend had not had any instructions either.
Taking the press release as it stands it's quite clear, 60/40 is the expected norm and for that split you are not required to keep any records.
That last word may be the key - "records" could be interpreted to mean no calculation of your justification of the "standard split".
Otherwise if you want more, then you should prepare your justification <span style="color:blue"> if asked, by a Revenue officer</span>.
The CE part of HMRC are clearly focused on getting the money in, as I understand it, there is little gain in them chasing minor misdelcarations, unless it becomes widespread, and talking to those who have been naughty on Red in road vehicles, they merely fine and recover the lost duty - at the first instance.
We've been tipped the wink that 60/40 is "reasonable". So be grateful for small mercies. The other words in the statement are to make the scheme stand up PC wise. After all, if you're not obliged to make or keep any records, how could you be sure that 60/40 was not fair and reasonable for your vessel?
edit: poo! - written before Stewart's reply, so not a meaningless copy, both confirm the issue as my source is on one side and his the other.
>>>The above is based on conversations I've had with people close to the negotiations, and is the ideal outcome for all concerned. <<<
Stewart, Thanks for that, I welcome your reassurances although I cannot accept that it is the IDEAL as adding 11ppl to the current price to bring us to the EU minimum would have avoided 18 months of negotiations and an additional 25ppl in tax and vat as well as well as confusion and uncertainty for industry and boaters alike.
Whilst celebrating how much better it is than expected lets not lose sight of how much better it should have been.
I look forward to seeing the fine print, especially with regard to the records collected by RCDO’s and whether these are passed to HMRC or merely retained in case an auditor wants to have a look. I would have thought that HMRC who expect the RCDO to collect a variable tax and vat revenue on their behalf would require some supporting evidence that the payment is correct. Why I am currently required to provide my name, address, and boat details when I buy fuel?
I look forward to the November issue and hope that it will be clear by then how Holland will respond to our plans.
If HMRC were truly being nice, why would they not grant ‘Blue Fin’ commercial status? You should be able to claim all the tax back under the ‘marine voyages’ tax legislation…..I am going to take up fishing!
RYA motor cruising projects manager, who said: "If you have an open RIB, you will have to declare 100% propulsion use for the diesel you buy. Boats with generators will be able to declare a higher proportion of diesel for domestic use and pay less duty on that proportion. Boats that live in marinas will struggle to prove that they are using a huge amount of diesel for anything other than propulsion.
However, yachts on passage that run the engine for a few hours to charge batteries may declare that diesel used for charging batteries is for domestic, non-propulsion use and pay the lower rate of duty."
erm RYA negotiated this well look after ones own here then they did alright.
Has any one done the sums?
Maths was not my strong subject at school - but
I currently pay 75ppl for red
According to the artical in MBM on 12th September
There is 9.69 p of tax and vat atr 5% included in my 75p
if you follow the figures and take off 5% vat then 9.69 p tax then add 50.4 p tax and vat at 17.5% you arrive at £1.32 ppl
Please prove me wrong because if im right then it will be cheaper to go to the garrage and buy white at £1.17
Is this a cynical ploy to get us to use ULSP and save the environment?!!
[ QUOTE ]
Has any one done the sums?
Maths was not my strong subject at school - but
I currently pay 75ppl for red
According to the article in MBM on 12th September
There is 9.69 p of tax and vat at 5% included in my 75p
if you follow the figures and take off 5% vat then 9.69 p tax then add 50.4 p tax and vat at 17.5% you arrive at £1.32 ppl
Please prove me wrong because if I'm right then it will be cheaper to go to the garage and buy white at £1.17
Is this a cynical ploy to get us to use ULSP and save the environment?!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Well I made it 131.75, but that's not my point:-
Using your figures
Your current buy price = 75p
Less VAT = 71.42p
Less duty (of 9.69p) = 61.73p base cost.
So at full duty your fuel is (61.63 + 50.40) x 1.75 = £131.75
My current buy for ULS Diesel (Asda, High Wycombe) was £1.189
I suspect that HMRC saw that as a huge spread and would encourage folks to fill cans with road fuel, etc, etc. Not a good idea.
so at 60/40 - no questions asked, you would pay
60% x £1.31.75 = 79.05p
40% x £0.75 = 30p
79.05p + 30p = £1.05 per litre
definitely more cost effective to take the standard "offer" from your marina, and not cart jerry cans around so -
<ul type="square">
The environment is protected,
EU letter of the regulations is followed both in terms of use and minimum duty,
HMRC "suggeted split" is followed,
everyone is happy - provided you don't raise your nose above the parapet, and say "Oh, but -"[/list]
For once the UK is using EU law with it's eyes open, perhaps manipulating it to get a reasonable situation, rather then the perceived blindly following.
[ QUOTE ]
Now consider also that HMRC was under no obligation to even give us this 40% allowance. They could have said 100% full duty, and told us to get on with it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or seeing that red diesel is totally illegal to use in a road vehicle they could have treated private boats in the same way as private planes...
Out of interest, can you tell me where it is stated by the EU that the 2 fuels are the same and what are the physical parameters of "gas oil"?
Of course the 60:40 split is better than 100:0 but the way it is "apparently" organised leaves it horribly open-ended.
I'm off boating again at the end of the month so will be interested to see what the fuel suppliers make of it [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
I plan to find out what the comercial barges in the river do, they are used to 000s of litres on commercial accounts which will remain exempt and like hard cash for private sales.
__________________
Two beers please, my friend is paying.
>>>>surely thats discrimination? how many times do we see these without sails and how many times with? at least 50/50, <<<
I think for VAT at 5% purposes we can all accept the title 'yachtsmen'.
It is strange how red and white fuel can be considered different for VAT purposes but not for Tax purposes.......still don't knock it, they only need to find a way of removing another 16PPL and we can get the tax increase down to the EU minimum.
Clean-diesel vehicles are expected to dominate the 2009 US vehicle market. In regard to this calculation, automakers are racing to convert their old technology into a fuel-saving sensation.
latest if anyone interested
Linear Mode
