Inland Revenue is watching us

TrueBlue said:
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.
Click to expand...

But is the £5 million after cost of collection and does it take into account the 60/40 split ie. They are now looking to collect only 40% of that 5 million assuming the buyer has declared at the esstablished norm.

Don't think 2 million before cost of collection is going to make much of a dent and they would be better off putting resources into something more lucrative.
 
smell the coffee

HMRC will spend ANY amount of PUBLIC money to get £1 of tax they think is due, those that think otherwise are sadly mistaken.:(

It's not a "not for profit organisation" they want it all, even when there're wrong, it takes an age to get it back, we're here for three score and ten the tax collector has been here forever!:rolleyes:
 
epervier said:
HMRC will spend ANY amount of PUBLIC money to get £1 of tax they think is due, those that think otherwise are sadly mistaken.:(

It's not a "not for profit organisation" they want it all, even when there're wrong, it takes an age to get it back, we're here for three score and ten the tax collector has been here forever!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
One problem is that civil servants don't think of their own time as a "cost" -- because they think "I'll get paid anyway". But those that are more than a step or two up the ladder do recognise that if they can expand the "workload" so that they can be "forced" to take on more staff, they will be in charge of a bigger department, so they will get paid more.
This is probably why the number of days work lost to "sickness" in the civil service is so much higher than in private industry: More staff = more salary. Of course, a civil servant who claims a couple of thousand pounds-worth of "sickies" per year doesn't regard this as "dishonest" -- nor does the manager who condones it.
Another problem is that targets are set in terms of "revenue" rather than profit -- so if a particular target is £100 million, it will be met if £100 million is received, even if it costs £200 million to collect it.
 
epervier said:
HMRC will spend ANY amount of PUBLIC money to get £1 of tax they think is due, those that think otherwise are sadly mistaken.:(
Click to expand...

I, once, some time ago now, had, at one time, five appeals by HMRC pending against decisions made by us in court against HMRC concerning goods being brought into the country by members of the public in excess of the HMRC Minimum Indicative Limits for personal use.

It seemed, at that time, as though any case that went against HMRC was automatically appealed against no matter how low the value of the alleged duty evaded or how much the appeal cost to process.

In fact none of the appeals were successful so goodness knows what they cost the taxpayer in barristers fees in the Crown Court.

They seem to be much more pragmatic nowadays regarding the appeal process.

Tom
 
Let me relate a story about HMRC which illustrates how anal they can be.

There was a tax inspector who used to take a pool car home from the office on the night prior to his doing visits far away up the W coast of Scotland.
Being an honest and industrious guy he would leave home at such a time as to actually arrive at his first visit about the time he would usually start work and leave his last visit of the day around the time he would normally stop.
He'd arrive home mid-evening having left about 7am. The next morning he'd return the pool car to the office before starting work at his usual time.

His superiors noticed his 2 nights use of the pool car and decided that he was due to pay the tax on 2 nights use of it - amounting to £5 if my memory serves. He argued that this seemed a bit daft, as the department were getting a full day's work from him working the way he did. If, however, they were serious about his going to be charged the tax then he would no longer put himself out of joint (and pocket) but instead would arrive at the office as normal, pick up the pool car at 9am then travel to his far-flung visits returning before 5pm to return the car and leaving the office at the normal time. This is what the rules allowed.
He argued that it seemed an eminently sensible idea that they waived the tax charge in this type of instance as they got a full days productive work from him this way, but only got just under half a day if he were to "play it by the book".

Surprise surprise - the rules is the rules - guess what he does now?

A true story....
 
Quote
"Another problem is that targets are set in terms of "revenue" rather than profit -- so if a particular target is £100 million, it will be met if £100 million is received, even if it costs £200 million to collect it."
Quote.

Tim,

HMRC will spend ANY amount of PUBLIC money to get £1 of tax they think is due

my point I believe.
 
Talking to my friend with the above problem, he has been decided after talking through with his accountant to pay the extra tax , looks like it is well under 2k.

Is it worth fighting, he works away from home and long hours. Also just wants it sorted!

Last thing he wants is is the worry and waist the time involved in a possible court case which he is likely to lose!

As he said the VAT Man has given him some money back in one hand but got it back in another hand!
 
Shame,

Can understand it but the taxman does tend to work on the fear factor safe in the knowledge that it doesn't matter to him what he spends in court.

Can understand the time element but if a joint fighting fund could be assembled, so the risk of financial loss was reduced, do you think he would reconsider?
 
Last edited:
ian38_39 said:
Shame,

Can understand it but the taxman does tend to work on the fear factor safe in the knowledge that it doesn't matter to him what he spends in court.

Can understand the time element but if a joint fighting fund could be assembled, so the risk of financial loss was reduced, do you think he would reconsider?
Click to expand...


Will tell him, but I know he is jumping on a plane to the USA next week for a month, spends more time away than here at the moment. I feel the case needs to be won rather than give up before its started.
 
johndove said:
Will tell him, but I know he is jumping on a plane to the USA next week for a month, spends more time away than here at the moment. I feel the case needs to be won rather than give up before its started.
Click to expand...

Before trying to set up some sort of fighting fund, we would need much more detail about this case.

From what I've read in this thread so far, I have virtually no idea what HMRC is actually querying.

As JFM said earlier, we're getting dribs and drabs of information, and 'the devil is in the detail'.
 
yes, as far as I understand, the guy's company has had some tax inspection, and he was using the company credit card to buy fuel for the boat(even though he then repaid the company). We dont know the response to his letter, or why he decided to just pay it, other than in one pocket/out the other/call it quits.
This doesnt seem a typical leisure boater refuelling scenario.
 
gjgm said:
yes, as far as I understand, the guy's company has had some tax inspection, and he was using the company credit card to buy fuel for the boat(even though he then repaid the company). We dont know the response to his letter, or why he decided to just pay it, other than in one pocket/out the other/call it quits.
This doesnt seem a typical leisure boater refuelling scenario.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I agree. As said above there is much devil in the detial. If he used the company to buy the fuel that immedaitely crreates complications including possibly arguments about non applicability of Notice 554. As you say it doesn't seem a typical case. It's not sensible to comment much further without having all the information, which we're not going to get

Incidentally, only tangential to this thread but worth mentioning here, when you buy a new boat or a 2nd hand dealer stock boat (but not a brokerage boat) you are entitled to the first fill up of fuel as 0/100 not 60/40 propulsion/domestic. You have to get the boat dealer to fill (not part-fill, strictly speaking) the boat and invoice you for the fuel as an extra, rahter than have the fuel dock supply you personally, but that's no effort. No big deal, but worth remembering.
 
HM Customs

HM Customs are waging war on employers and employes .. After the MP's extravagent excesses the Revenue have now decided to look at all claims .. If they think it should have been declared and was not then you are liable for a FINE of £100 per month until its declared .. At the moment they are going back 3 years to look for inconsistancies so ONE discression 3 years ago is going to cost you £3600 in fines .. :eek: .. UNLESS of course you are an MP .. :rolleyes:
 
Wasn't suggesting that everything should be taken at face value and if funds are to be raised then it is imperative that people know what they are for and the full facts.

I just think that putting a test case in now could save a lot of Boaters a lot of Heartache later on.

No skin off my nose, my boat is petrol but as a boating community it is important to stand together if the facts are as presented so far, or the tax man will have everyone, one at a time.

Ian
 
Just had an email from my friend and he is thinking about fighting it rather than paying it. Very worried about a possible fine on top of the extra duty.

Do you is a lost cause or can it be won.

Also is there anyone out there who can advise or help!

Trouble is can he justify the 40% domestic over his holidays and 4 tanks of fuel!
 
I thought he had sent a letter saying he was following the broad outline of advice from HMRC on the 60/40 split ? You only need to make an annual declaration, I believe, which might make the 60/40 more "obvious". In making one at each fill up, you are predicting your annual split, surely, not the split on that tank full, which of course is impossible - and hence the 60/40 arrangement.
I d wait for a response to the letter.
What we dont know at all, is if there is some added complication with his company/private use of boat that is not being made clear.. private vs commercial, for example?
 
johndove said:
Just had an email from my friend and he is thinking about fighting it rather than paying it. Very worried about a possible fine on top of the extra duty.

Do you is a lost cause or can it be won.

Also is there anyone out there who can advise or help!

Trouble is can he justify the 40% domestic over his holidays and 4 tanks of fuel!
Click to expand...

I'll happily advise him (for free, though I do this stuff professionally) if he wishes. PM an email address?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top