Grrr VAT Certificate...

There have, over the years been reports of the Dutch being prissy about this, however apart from the hassle, does not seem to be any evidence that they penalise anybody. Just (as with red diesel) throwing their weight around a bit!
 
The boat is eight years old, built in Poland, and sold to me in the UK by a UK agent. Price then was £60k; difficult to establish current value. The boat has had some issues.
 
MoodySabre said:
If it is a Moody then ring Princess Yachts in Plymouth where it was built. If they finished it there then they will be able to provide a copy of the original invoice. If,like mine, it was finished at Swanwick then hard luck as they haven't got the old records.
Click to expand...
I have just binned the VAT receipt which I was given when I bought a new Moody 30 in 1977. I sold it in 1981 nobody asked for the original Vat receipt in 33 years.
I think that in those days boatyards were not so careful with documentation as they should have been and a lot of re-constituted invoices have been cobbled together since.
Mind you the boatyard I bought my Moody from were a dodgy lot and I imagine that they just typed another invoice out showing an inflated original price in order to stop the purchaser seeing how much profit they were making.
And then it was Marine Projects selling trough sub-dealers.

PS. In 1982 I bought a boat in the Channel Islands which had been exported from the UK the week before VAT came in (April 1973) I sold it 2 years later (with no VAT receipt obviously) Then it was noticed at a south coast marina who by a VAT Inspector who decided to trace its history, consequently I had a VAT inspection and I was charged VAT, perhaps had I been a private individual they would not have bothered but as I ran a business I was targeted. Things may have changed.
 
Last edited:
By all accounts one is only obliged to keep original receipts for 7 years, anywhere in the EU. Even the big boys like Beneteau are incapable of going back into records 20, 25 years or longer ago for original invoices. Certainly the Greeks couldn't produce anything when I tried going back into the history of my boat.

Why is it that one is obliged to prove Vat has been paid as opposed to some revenue services' obligation to prove it hasn't? When it comes to tax we are all guilty before being proven innocent rather than the opposite!
 
nimbusgb said:
Why is it that one is obliged to prove Vat has been paid as opposed to some revenue services' obligation to prove it hasn't? When it comes to tax we are all guilty before being proven innocent rather than the opposite!
Click to expand...

Ian

That has been my question before when this topic has been discussed. Innocent until proven guilty.

I think it is the tax authorities trying it on through intimidation and IMHO they should be charged with the crime of intimidation.

Before retiring I spent 25 years dealing daily with Customs and their computer systems.
 
nimbusgb said:
Why is it that one is obliged to prove Vat has been paid as opposed to some revenue services' obligation to prove it hasn't? When it comes to tax we are all guilty before being proven innocent rather than the opposite!
Click to expand...

Alas that isn't what UK law says. HMRC need merely reasonable grounds to issue a tax assessment. Then the law provides that the onus of proof is on the taxpayer to show that the assessment is wrong.

Separately, many of the above posts contain other incorrect descriptions of UK law but I won't list them all here as it would be a bit boring.
 
OK as you have asked :D A general problem on here is that a large number of VAT posts are almost right but not quite right, and their sheer number means that people reading this forum (which has a deservedly high reputation of course) will tend to believe things they're seen written many times, even when poster B is merely copying what poster A said previously. I'm not accusing you of that and like/respect your posts! No big deal I suppose, but with tax the devil is in the detail (I'm very highly qualified in tax law btw, as qualified as you can be really)

You wrote in #30 above
Owners who must carry proof that VAT has been paid are non-EU registered boats which have EU residents on board (usually detected because they carry EU passport crew). Channel Island registered boats are often used by EU residents, and will routinely be checked that VAT has been paid, as will other non-EU boats with EU passports aboard.
Click to expand...

That isn't quite correct. First there is no "must". There is no law saying you must do that, so by not doing it you are not in breach of any law

Second, it is a fact that one of the VAT-avoiding provisions throughout EU is the TI relief, which is applicable ONLY to non EU reg boats. So, sure, a customs officer might well think "That boat might be on TI" when he sees a non EU flagged boat. He might then choose to board and inspect the boat, though see my para below about "routinely". He will be looking for two things: (A) that it is only being used by a non EU owner and he will typically be satisfied about that if he sees a non EU passport (and its owner!) of the person named in the ship's papers as the owner. It's irrelevant who else is on board, ie EU people or not, so long as they are non-paying guests or crew. Paying guests whether EU or non EU passport breach TI, so the customs officer will need to be content that the boat isn't on charter to anyone. (B) He will be looking to see the boat has been physically outside EU no longer than 18 months ago, and normally a berthing receipt in a non EU port will be ok for this.

Third, I think "routinely" exaggerates the frequency with which these inspections occur. I have no hard data but strong anecdotal evidence suggests inspections are rare. Jimmy-the-builder has cruised UK and SofF in a Guernsey reg boat (it was like that when he bought it, and it is VAT paid) for 6 years, with one inspection only. I personally have done hundreds of miles in Jersey reg non VAT paid "TI" boats in the Med and never been stopped. I know many captains+owners of TI boats in the Med and they report that inspections are rare - once every 2 years typically on the law of averages
 
jfm,

Many thanks. As you say, the devil is in the detail.

There's a compromise when writing advice; things have to be simplified and short, otherwise there's a big yawn and the real message doesn't come across. The real message here is that evidence of VAT payment is not important for EU registered boats, whatever HMRC advise, and whatever the RYA publish.

I accept all your points. We'll jostle a bit on "how often", but I accept "routinely" has recently only applied to Portugal and Croatia, where, in both countries, on entry there are regular close inspections of all boats' status in all matters, especially VAT. Portugal is now lightening up a little. A difficulty here is that these waves of diligence come and go rather unpredictably. And advice has to cover practice, as well as law.

The difference arises especially if officials are not well trained in customs regulations. This is common in Greece, where Coast Guards (port police in YBW parlance) are delegated a lot of authority in customs matters. Uncertainties can then lead to inconvenient delays, or alternatively (several times a year) only short duration permissions to cruise are issued to non-EU craft - even if they're VAT paid.

My data on customs events in the EU come from questions posed to the Cruising Association - by members and non members alike. I deal with about one query a month for the Mediterranean - so it seems frequent to me! But yes, rare for Mr & Mrs with adequate paperwork.

Many thanks for the detail on the law. Just what I wanted, and much appreciated.
 
All agreed Jim. And yes I can see the compromise point when writing advice. That's a difficult one on a topic where the devil is in the detail because if you remove the detail you unfortunately remove the accuracy. The choice is then make it right but no-one reads it, or make it mostly right then everyone reads it but potentially faces getting caught out on the detail. No clear answer to that one. Thanks for the data and observations on the specific countries
 
Joker said:
The Dutch Customs seem to be of a different opinion.
Click to expand...

However, you need to put it into perspective. The occasional prissy local official who makes life a bit of a pain - but actually cannot do anything, against the thousands of boats that move freely around Europe and never experience any issues with VAT paperwork.
 
jimbaerselman said:
We'll jostle a bit on "how often", but I accept "routinely" has recently only applied to Portugal and Croatia, where, in both countries, on entry there are regular close inspections of all boats' status in all matters, especially VAT. Portugal is now lightening up a little.
Click to expand...

The Portuguese situation has been blown out of proportion. A couple of years ago there were quite a few inspections for safety equipment and a couple of boats (IIRC very new) were asked to produce a T5. The inspections have been reduced after the RYA had discussions with them and In 8 years there, I've not met anyone who's had VAT problems. Personally, in that time, we've only been asked to produce passports, insurance and SSR once.
 
GrahamM376 said:
The Portuguese situation has been blown out of proportion. A couple of years ago there were quite a few inspections for safety equipment and a couple of boats (IIRC very new) were asked to produce a T5. The inspections have been reduced after the RYA had discussions with them and In 8 years there, I've not met anyone who's had VAT problems. Personally, in that time, we've only been asked to produce passports, insurance and SSR once.
Click to expand...
Agreed that very few people are affected. See the correspondence on http://www.jimbsail.info/portugal for details. I also received a number of reports about tenders being used along the coast SW of Lagos. Some were "too far away from mother ships"; others were "too far from where they were launched"; and yet others "not marked with mother ship's name"; and one "illegally motoring towards a swimming beach". All were warnings, rather than fines, so not of sufficient consequence to write up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top