Another naive question please

[Robin]

IF say we were to buy a planing boat like a Princess 435 or 45 and be Solent based live aboards, would it be cost effective to make an occasional fuel run to St Peter Port to fill up fully tax free assuming going in fuel conservation mode on the return trip, ie speed around displacement. I believe normal fuel capacity is +/- 400 gallons? My brain is stuck in lateral thinking mode but when there is not too good at the mental maths. Is this something people do or just if going there regardless?

 

[BruceK]

If you are fully liveaboard you are tax free anyway AFAIK.... ?

 

[Tranona]

If you are fully liveaboard you are tax free anyway AFAIK.... ?

Since when? Liveaboards are exactly the same as any other private boater.

 

[Robin]

Since when? Liveaboards are exactly the same as any other private boater.

Perhaps he is confusing live aboards who are just using diesel fuel for heating and generating, like a canal boat not moving off a residential mooring? We would be stationary at times for even a week or two perhaps but otherwise want to cruise places like we used to but keep the fuel costs down to affordable on (very) limited pension funds. We can do short hops at displacement speeds without too much pain after a life of sailing speeds but even so filling a 2000 litre + tank at £1/lt on 60/40 split would still make me wince.:disgust:

 

[Tranona]

Perhaps he is confusing live aboards who are just using diesel fuel for heating and generating, like a canal boat not moving off a residential mooring?

There are indeed specific rules for residential boats on the inland waterways system - but you made it quite clear that is not what you will be doing! I suppose in theory you could declare all fuel used just for heating etc in the winter when not moving, but difficult to justify when it goes in the same tank as the fuel for your engine. You could of course replumb so that one tank feeds the engine and the other just the heater and generator. Might save you a few bob!

 

[BruceK]

It's something that came up in the Red Diesel thread. I may be misreading it but see paragraph 3.8 and 4.7. If your boat is your main residence and you hold the required mooring / permit /council tax and only use the boat for short hops i.e. liveaboard not permanent cruising, then you qualify for diesel at commercial rate (ok not tax free per se but in the spirit of things)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...leasure-craft-and-for-private-pleasure-flying

 

[tom52]

A return Channel crossing at displacement speed in a planing hull would be very uncomfortable for a very long time in all but the most unusual Channel conditions

 

[Robin]

It's something that came up in the Red Diesel thread. I may be misreading it but see paragraph 3.8 and 4.7. If your boat is your main residence and you hold the required mooring / permit /council tax and only use the boat for short hops i.e. liveaboard not permanent cruising, then you qualify for diesel at commercial rate (ok not tax free per se but in the spirit of things)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...leasure-craft-and-for-private-pleasure-flying

Agreed but perhaps pushes the limits of credibility in our projected case. We will most likely be carless ( too much hassle for little use) and although on a residential permitted mooring and likely paying council tax, occasional,even weekly shortish ( but could be 10 miles) forays to a temporary berth close to a decent supermarket for a stockup can still use a lot of fuel unless done at below displacement speed.

I had in mind combining an annual or twice a year vacation run to the Channel islands and taking full advantage of the fuel prices available there.

I'm wanting to reduce costs by careful planning but not run an illegal operation.

 

[BruceK]

I wasn't suggesting you run an illegal operation, just that you can get a rebate on your diesel if you are a liveaboard. That's the crux of it - liveaboard. If you are a constant cruiser then no you wont get a full rebate. But you also have to be honest in your aspirations. As a liveaboard in the solent, just how many days in the year will you be getting out? I'd suggest far fewer than anticipated and then those that you do, pay the 60/40 split. Certainly I wouldn't anticipate you using a constant 60/40.

 

[Robin]

A return Channel crossing at displacement speed in a planing hull would be very uncomfortable for a very long time in all but the most unusual Channel conditions

I'm very well aware of Channel crossing conditions and have crossed hundreds if not thousands of times at displacement speeds or below in sailboats, under sail or power. We ran our live aboard 47ft semi-displacement trawler motor yacht in the USA ICW, not wide open sea conditions admittedly, and it was comfy enough even without the stabilisers that many others had. I''m assuming being fully retired we can time our crossings to coincide with best conditions but prepared if caught to adjust running speeds to suit lumpier stuff if required.

 

[BruceK]

Out of interest, considering how you plan to use the boat, why the Princess? You have much the same aspirations as I do (hence asking). Given the styling and lines of the Princess I'd have thought, well it's my aspiration at least, something like a President 46 would be more suitable. SD hull with an economical displacement cruise speed of 7 knts but capable of 14-15 knts if you dont mind the burn

example
http://www.networkyachtbrokers.com/boats_for_sale/President_46_Flybridge-22221.html/

 

[Robin]

I wasn't suggesting you run an illegal operation, just that you can get a rebate on your diesel if you are a liveaboard. That's the crux of it - liveaboard. If you are a constant cruiser then no you wont get a full rebate. But you also have to be honest in your aspirations. As a liveaboard in the solent, just how many days in the year will you be getting out? I'd suggest far fewer than anticipated and then those that you do, pay the 60/40 split. Certainly I wouldn't anticipate you using a constant 60/40.

Understood, but starting with full tanks and having possible consumption rates between below 1mpg and 3mpg (if really parsimonious) would make the calculations and declarations hard as each little foray would be different. Whilst being residential and having no dirt home we might still want to do circular tours of favourite places but not so keen at over a quid a mile!

WE could of course go sailboat again like we did happily for over 50 years but the reality is that the best of home comforts in harbour are better met by motor yachts. I hate to admit but an island double berth owner's cabin is essential as middle of the night scrabbling over the other half is not on whichever of us is the scrabbler or scrabblee. Motorsailers seem attractive but in our price range do not fulfill the perfect comfort in harbour role, whilst adding to the complications of two handed handling.

 

[Tranona]

It's something that came up in the Red Diesel thread. I may be misreading it but see paragraph 3.8 and 4.7. If your boat is your main residence and you hold the required mooring / permit /council tax and only use the boat for short hops i.e. liveaboard not permanent cruising, then you qualify for diesel at commercial rate (ok not tax free per se but in the spirit of things)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...leasure-craft-and-for-private-pleasure-flying

That is true - but it is very difficult to comply with the conditions in a seawater berth - and certainly not in Robin's case.

The main difficulty is that coastal marinas are not residential, although some houseboats, such as the ones in Bembridge do have permanent residential permission.

The regulations regarding residential use were written specifically around the inland waterways (mainly canal) regime where there is a formal distinction between "residential" and "constant cruising" and very large numbers of the former. They are arguably the biggest group who would have lost with the withdrawal of red diesel from waterside outlets.

 

[Robin]

Out of interest, considering how you plan to use the boat, why the Princess? You have much the same aspirations as I do (hence asking). Given the styling and lines of the Princess I'd have thought, well it's my aspiration at least, something like a President 46 would be more suitable. SD hull with an economical displacement cruise speed of 7 knts but capable of 14-15 knts if you dont mind the burn

example
http://www.networkyachtbrokers.com/boats_for_sale/President_46_Flybridge-22221.html/

That is very similar to the Marine Trader 47 we lived on here in Florida. Ideally we prefer the berthing costs based on max say 14m LOA inc dinghy and davits since these are charged for in UK but weren't in Florida where we were based. We cruised at 8kts mostly, but could do 17 if required and burned around 8 gph (US gallons at $1.10/gallon) including the generator. We alsio had 600watts of solar panels and all gas stove although as our electrics were billed per connection, not metered usage we did acquire a variety of plug in extra leccy cooker stuff, like grill, steamer, toaster oven, wok even.


If I look at a simple short trip, I wince at it if it costs like £60 each way to just go to Poole from the Solent, something like 6 times what it would cost under engine only in our last sailboat and on a good day the wind is free..

We found one very suitable sailing boat but foolishly asked a question here that identified it and another jumped right in and bought it, sight unseen, ( there is a warning there!). Price to us is important as we will be buying from remaining savings

 

[BruceK]

That's interesting. In Conwy we have a fair few liveaboard both in the harbour and marina. I also know of one pensioner in Pwllheli on a dutch steel trawler I got friendly with as I used to walk his manic pup for him. He said his berth in the marina is paid in lieu of housing etc and as such seen as his permanent residence.

Edit. In response to T

2nd Edit. I hear Liverpool marina is very popular for liveaboard as it's seen as a financial win for city centre living. Whether it's seen as a permanent domicile I'm not sure though.

 

[Robin]

That's interesting. In Conwy we have a fair few liveaboard both in the harbour and marina. I also know of one pensioner in Pwllheli on a dutch steel trawler I got friendly with as I used to walk his manic pup for him. He said his berth in the marina is paid in lieu of housing etc and as such seen as his permanent residence.

Edit. In response to T

2nd Edit. I hear Liverpool marina is very popular for liveaboard as it's seen as a financial win for city centre living. Whether it's seen as a permanent domicile I'm not sure though.

Lots of places turn a blind eye to live aboards, but finding ones that can be used as a proper (as in proveable with utility bills etc) residential address for bank accounts, credit cards, bus passes etc not so easy.Two such in the saltwater south will but council tax is payable at both, althoughno problem with that. Later if we go farther afield regularly we might become more long term cruisers and go elsewhere under the blind eye schemes as and when we want to dodge winters perhaps..IN the USa our marina contract was enough proof for getting library cards, even drivers licences.

 

[superheat6k]

When HMRC introduced duty & VAT charges for propulsion use of red diesel they recognised two things, firstly that private citizens are entitled to procure such fuel free of such charges where used for power generation and heating. Secondly they likely saw the real likelihood of inadvertently creating a massive black market opportunity for certain commercial users to make a fast buck from leisure boaters.

The 60:40 split was as I recall suggested as being as reasonable purchase ratio for most leisure boaters whereby 40% more than covers the likely non-propulsion needs of the vast majority of boaters. With this suggestion was the explanation that any leisure user purchasing at such a ratio would not expect it likely to be further questioned upon their specific usage. However, any purchaser is at liberty to declare any ratio they wish, just be aware that anything less than 60% propulsion could see you later being required to explain in greater detail your circumstances.

Also this ratio considerably diminishes the monetary gain of any would be bootleggers, to the point that I doubt any one bothers to acquire hookey red diesel by such nefarious means.

As to whether HMRC have sufficient resources to police effectively any non 60:40 declarations is another matter entirely.

 

[IDAMAY]

When HMRC introduced duty & VAT charges for propulsion use of red diesel they recognised two things, firstly that private citizens are entitled to procure such fuel free of such charges where used for power generation and heating. Secondly they likely saw the real likelihood of inadvertently creating a massive black market opportunity for certain commercial users to make a fast buck from leisure boaters.

The 60:40 split was as I recall suggested as being as reasonable purchase ratio for most leisure boaters whereby 40% more than covers the likely non-propulsion needs of the vast majority of boaters. With this suggestion was the explanation that any leisure user purchasing at such a ratio would not expect it likely to be further questioned upon their specific usage. However, any purchaser is at liberty to declare any ratio they wish, just be aware that anything less than 60% propulsion could see you later being required to explain in greater detail your circumstances.

Also this ratio considerably diminishes the monetary gain of any would be bootleggers, to the point that I doubt any one bothers to acquire hookey red diesel by such nefarious means.

As to whether HMRC have sufficient resources to police effectively any non 60:40 declarations is another matter entirely.

Some years ago but at least a couple of years after the "fudge" was introduced, I asked at various marinas around the UK as to whether or not their fuel sales records had been inspected. Without exception the answer was "no." I cannot, of course, say that the same is true today. As an aside, at that time some boaters in a relatively remote part of the UK were declaring 100% for heating and giving false boat names. I think most fuel sources have cleared up their acts to prevent this sort of abuse by now.

To return to the OP's question, let's say the distance from his home port on the Solent to St Peter Port is 95 miles and his Princess or whatever can achieve an average of 1.8 nautical miles per gallon at a mix of cruising speeds. (Based on experience with Sealines' F42/5 and T47 used in that way, 1.8 may be generous). For the sake of the question let's assume that the price of UK fuel at 60/40 is £1 per litre and the price of fuel at St Sampsons, Guernsey is £0.50 per litre. To simplify, the boat tanks hold 2000 litres. Allowing for a 20% safety margin the boat will need to leave UK with 930 litres on board and will arrive with, say 160 litres in the tanks. In practice it would not be possible or desirable to run at such fine margins so let's say she arrives with 230litres on board.

This allows a theoretical purchase of 1770 litres at St Sampsons at a cost of £885. Assuming that the return journey is over the exact same route and in the exact same conditions she will burn 780 litres on the way back. The total fuel cost of the return trip is therefore £780 (UK fuel) plus £390 (CI fuel) = £1170. The saving on the balance of CI fuel is £495. The net fuel cost of the trip is £675. It isn't worth making the trip for cost saving reasons but its is a different matter if you want to visit the Channel Islands for other reasons.

I hope my logic and arithmetic are broadly correct but I am sure I will soon be corrected if not! I don't think the case would be massively sensitive to smallish changes in fuel consumption or fuel price but I haven't tested that theory.

 

[Hurricane]

This allows a theoretical purchase of 1770 litres at St Sampsons at a cost of £885. Assuming that the return journey is over the exact same route and in the exact same conditions she will burn 780 litres on the way back. The total fuel cost of the return trip is therefore £780 (UK fuel) plus £390 (CI fuel) = £1170. The saving on the balance of CI fuel is £495. The net fuel cost of the trip is £675. It isn't worth making the trip for cost saving reasons but its is a different matter if you want to visit the Channel Islands for other reasons.

I hope my logic and arithmetic are broadly correct but I am sure I will soon be corrected if not! I don't think the case would be massively sensitive to smallish changes in fuel consumption or fuel price but I haven't tested that theory.

I can't see anything wrong with your maths
but
.
.
.
.
We all use MAN MATHS on this forum.
Man Maths would show a fantastic saving.

 

[Robin]

Thank you good people. Not sure what 'Man Maths' are, I suspect the boat owner's ones viewed through rose coloured spectacle ones. Sort of confirms my own middle of night brain calculations. We would certainly enjoy a short break occasionally and filling up would go towards the hitherto uncosted elements of other nonessential purchases, like multiple fine dinings out to name just one.


BAck to reality however. we will not be cruising great distances locally on a daily basis but even a quick run offshore to empty holding tanks or to catch a fish or too could burn multiple squids. Staying tied up 360/365 days and growing weeds underneath and tomato plants on the flybridge would likely put us well into perceived hobo category irritating both me and the neighbours greatly.

Brexit's effect on $ exchange rates has been a factor in formulating our return home plans but I suppose when/if it really happens there will not be a return to totally tax free red like wot it once was, leastwise not immediate

I suppose we could claim full commercial fuel use and turn paid black market cross -Channel people smugglers (Joke--do calm down Maud) that would be win win financially on fuel and income and even get us put into an all inclusive residential home, albeit ones with bars on the windows.:ambivalence: