latest if anyone interested

[whisper]

It also generally has a higher sulphur content than "road" diesel - so again "how can it be the same fuel?"

Our boating organisations have really done us proud on this, haven't they?

 

[Lotus_John]

"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.

 

[Lotus_John]

Sorry for the repeated message.

"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.

 

[adrianm]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

 

[Sneds]

couldn't agree more and will be doing exactly the same thing

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

>>>
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"

 

[SolentPhill]

The oct issue of their newsletter ends with ....

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.

 

[StewartC]

Hi Whisper,

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.

Stewart

 

[Sneds]

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!!

 

[duncan]

perceptive

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........

 

[Lotus_John]

“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.

 

[Lotus_John]

Re: perceptive

-------------------
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.

 

[Sneds]

Re: perceptive

Of course not, but you are allowed to declare 60/40 so whats the problem?

 

[Lotus_John]

Re: perceptive

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.

 

[Sneds]

Re: perceptive

Thats not how I interpret it, 60/40 no questions.

Am I wrong?

 

[Sneds]

Re: perceptive

........and its not just heating, there is battery charging, fridges, lights, gennie etc?

 

[Sneds]

Re: perceptive

......... oh, and the TV! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[halcyon]

Re: perceptive

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

 

[Lotus_John]

Re: perceptive

Thats not how I interpret it, 60/40 no questions.

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.

 

[Sneds]

Re: perceptive

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.