Inland Revenue is watching us
- Thread starter johndove
- Start date
johndove
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
gjgm
Well-Known Member
BTW, there are alot of bogus HMRC.org etc emails going round asking for payments and details.
They are not from HMRC, but it looks very convincing.
They are not from HMRC, but it looks very convincing.
johndove
Well-Known Member
This one is real! From his local HMRC,
T
timbartlett
Guest
OTOH the original post referred to a letter, not an email. And there are a lot of those going around claiming to be from HMRC and asking for payments and details. Sadly, they are not bogus.
I wish I could believe Brendan S's idea that it's an innocent mistake ... but when did any of us, personally, receive an apology from a civil servant for having made a mistake? And if something isn't a mistake, it must be deliberate, right?
I'm more inclined to believe that this is one of the first raindrops in a shower that could become a storm, and that HMRC has decided that it is time to renege on the deal it struck a couple of years ago.
Sorry, Andrew_Fanner, but I'm afraid I've also learned to apply the Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus principle to everything I receive from the civil service.
jfm
Well-Known Member
Anything is possible Tim, but it's v unlikely they have decided to do that and say nothing. Moreover there are various legal remedies that a boater could pursue (if he knew what he was doing/had the right advice) if HMRC did actually renege
If they wanted to collect more tax and decided the 60/40 was wrong their likely course of action would be to announce that they no longer consider the 60/40 typical and that they will be doing extensive questionning/testing/auditing of any boaters who claim domestic use. But they haven't done that. So I still think this letter is a local tax office asking a fair question and not planning to renege on the "60/40=typical" principle. Just imho though.
johndove
Well-Known Member
Talking to the Guy today,
He did have a VAT people around a month before to check all was correct with his business, went through his company books for 3 days!
They found nothing major, other he had not claimed a couple thousand back more than he should which he has now!
Maybe they think the 60/40 is the only thing they can get him on rather leave empty handed!
His boat is not on his business, but sometime he uses a company card, but always pays it back so they would have seen he had a nice boat and maybe seen some fuel go through. None of this was a problem at the time.
He did have a VAT people around a month before to check all was correct with his business, went through his company books for 3 days!
They found nothing major, other he had not claimed a couple thousand back more than he should which he has now!
Maybe they think the 60/40 is the only thing they can get him on rather leave empty handed!
His boat is not on his business, but sometime he uses a company card, but always pays it back so they would have seen he had a nice boat and maybe seen some fuel go through. None of this was a problem at the time.
jfm
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. The relevant info is coming in dribs and drabs!
So is the letter asking about 60/40 fuel from the same tax office/same reference number/same tax inspector who is dealing with his general VAT enquiry, or are the two things completely unrelated?There is much devil in detail here. Unless we can see a scan of the actual letter (which I don't expect him to do!) there is going to be much guesswork as to what's really the story here
johndove
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. The relevant info is coming in dribs and drabs!
There is much devil in detail here. Unless we can see a scan of the actual letter (which I don't expect him to do!) there is going to be much guesswork as to what's really the story here
Not sure if its the same tax office/same reference number/same tax inspector. Will find out.
nicho
RIP
A proper pastime, eh Paul?
John100156
Well-Known Member
Yes, I always try to interject with a little levity on such matters but do of course welcome the excellent and more serious input from fellow Forumites like yourself. It does make me cross though, all these ridiculous and ill thought out laws and regulations...... We all know this VAT rule is unworkable and will simply be a tool for HMRC to soon implement an additional tax on fuel across the board IMO, which I hope the RYA will use their good offices to seek to minimise.
jfm
Well-Known Member
Yup, this, like so many recent laws, is badly thought out, lacking in logic, capriciously applied and policed, etc. Thing is, it might be even worse if all the government officials and HMRC inspectors were shiit hot. So, careful what you wish for!
Adrianwool
Well-Known Member
Regarding the 60/40 split, I cannot see this being immediately changed. However, the future is a bit uncertain bearing in mind that whichever shade of government is the winner of the next election they will be scratching around for revenue as the country is going to be skint for some time to come. I note from the BBC this morning that the government is cutting back 13million it pays to overseas civil servants in benefits, which in the scheme of government spending is a paltry sum. If the government decided they were going to abolish the concession on the split, how much extra revenue would they collect?. Secondly I believe the UK is the only place in the EU where there is this kind of concession for pleasure boaters, and we all know there is an EU goal to have 'harmonisation' where-ever possible. So my verdict is things will be ok for now, but do not be surprised if a change comes along in the future
T
timbartlett
Guest
If we had true harmonisation, we wouldn't need the 60:40 split -- we'd be paying 20p per litre less even at full rate! This problem isn't caused by the EU and never was. It's entirely home-grown, and is caused by UK government greed.
Before I get accused of ranting (again) let me explain:-
Suppose, for instance, there was no harmonisation, and someone living on the Dutch German border could save £20 every time he filled his car just by popping a couple of miles down the road? The Dutch government would lose out. So to stop that kind of thing, the EU countries are prepared to harmonise, setting a minimum rate of tax to prevent any country from undercutting its neighbours. There's no need for a maximum, because no government in its right mind would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs by grossly overcharging.
But we are an island, so we don't benefit from that kind of competition. Successive British Governments have exploited that situation (and us) by increasing the tax on road fuel.
In September, for instance, the price of road diesel in France worked out at about 90p (of which 52p was tax. Here, it was about 110p, of which 70p was tax.
Boats, of course, can go backwards and forwards between France much more easily than cars, so there is an element of cross-channel competition -- just like the cross-border competition between the countries of mainland Europe.
And -- guess what -- the 60:40 split means that our effective rate of tax on marine diesel puts us roughly on par with France.
I don't know (but I strongly suspect) that that is the main reason for the 60:40 split. It's certainly a convenient coincidence.
But if the HMRC (or a few individuals within HMRC) can renege on the 60:40 agreement, it will squeeze an extra bit of revenue to help them meet their targets for this year. To hell with the long term effect on boat-owners or the marine industry. Why should they care?
epervier
Well-Known Member
I agree with a lot of what you say but you've forgotten another very important element, that, of the culture of the british, in the main we are sheep, frighten by the sheepdog (HMRC) who no doubt will make an example of someone who errs with their declaration, and they (HMRC) will hang these people out to dry, as a warning to the rest of us, so that we may tow the line, it has never ever been about what's right or fair, they do it because they can and unlike the french we do feck all about it!
and btw the 1st day of the new year also brings more misery, Darling puts the VAT back up to former levels so derv will probably be close to 1.20 at supermarkets and even more on marinas, happy feckin' christmas.
Adrianwool
Well-Known Member
Major Catastrophe
Well-Known Member
Adrianwool;2343915 I note from the BBC this morning that the government is cutting back 13million it pays to overseas civil servants in benefits said:
epervier
Well-Known Member
easy,
this man's a ******, he even admits it by gesture, trying to prove to the world he's a humanitarian, distancing himself from his warmongering predecessor, using our tax borrowed pounds
ian38_39
Well-Known Member
Sorry can't see it, I would think the cost of collecting the 40% claimed would be more than the revenue it would generate, so not a sensible general ruling to make.
What I can say is that at work every reclaim of VAT for exported goods results in a tax inspection, 3 days of 2 mini hitlers locked in the broom cupboard with their sandwich boxes, eventually emerging triumphantly when they have found a reclaim of VAT on the coffee machine supplies and no payment of VAT for the revenue from the machine that has been charged at cost. Yep 3 days 2 officers yield £5.20, what a result.
Once these nasty little things get their teeth in they won't let go without a result so ifthe company audit didn't turn up anything other than a loan on fuel money I would hazard a guess that this is stage 2.
TrueBlue
Well-Known Member
To my mind it's not really a concession; somebody in the HMRC read the EU rules and seeing the word "propulsion", for once decided to apply that to the letter. Hence the split - propulsion = pay full rate, anything else = reduced rate. on the other side of La Manche I think they treat Red Diesel differently in its other uses.
The quantum (60:40) of the acceptable split was negotiated in the good old British tradition of consensus.
However, I do feel that the numbers made the final price slightly cheaper that supermarket road fuel, which would tend to discourage folks by filling up jerry cans.
So if the "concession" were to be removed that potential problem of pollution would raise its head again.
At the time of the change I saw estimates of £5M being quoted as the extra revenue raised by the additional duty.