MBY Feb 2012 - Legal Aid (VAT) article

[benjenbav]

[QUOTE

The fact that you think it valid to pigeonhole people by the type of boat or sort of boating they do does,however,appear to serve to highlight the difference that exists between your theoretical black & white world and mine that,some of the time,is more of a shade of grey and doesn't look to generalise,pre-judge or villify as a result.
Now,maybe,that's something to reflect on.

Hi SW, Thanks for your kind comments about me. On the boat question I'm sure jfm's interest is genuine. I own a "classic" or, if you like, a 20 y/o tugboat. Suits me though. I'd only swap for a Mangusta 105 so that I could buy mine back and put the balance in the bank. I will admit to being (un?)healthily interested in other people's boats which may help explain why I was posting rubbish at 02:30 this morning on a boaty forum.

 

[jfm]

Hi SW, Thanks for your kind comments about me.

Martin I agree with SW on this and I think you're a damn fine man (or woman?) too

 

[MYAG]

+1.
My wild guess is rather for the first than the latter, on both accounts.

Oi, wot u trying t'say sunshine?

 

[MYAG]

MYAG, I did actually know the authorship of the article when I mentioned it. But someone's gotta make the hard yards so that the fancy boys with clean shirts can carry the ball over the try line. ??

Yes I thought so, but I just loved the way it was slipped in at the end so innocently, made me chuckle.

Anyway, what did you think about the 28M??

Hmmm, in short, great saloon, bow seating area and exterior looks, you can keep the rest including the awful fake teak capping............. no real great advantage on where I am, so not for me, particularly at 5.1M.

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

Hmmm, in short, great saloon, bow seating area and exterior looks, you can keep the rest including the awful fake teak capping............. no real great advantage on where I am, so not for me, particularly at 5.1M.

+1 on that bow area, truly fab.

Cheers
Jimmy

 

[jfm]

no real great advantage on where I am, so not for me, particularly at 5.1M.

That's the problem though. You're in such a nice place with a custom stabbed Y80 that to get an appreciable uplift you have to invest addition 3bar, which is quite a cheque to write just for more elbow room here and there.

 

[MapisM]

Re the inane need to know or the relevance of my taste in boats and your unfathomable assumption that you know so much about me,can I suggest you read my previous post?

LOL, call it inane if you wish, but surely it isn't a need, just a slight curiosity.
Not even enough to check any of your previous posts - I'm fine with those in this thread, which I did read...

 

[MapisM]

Oi, wot u trying t'say sunshine?

Well, I didn't say there's anything wrong in cruising the Med with a S/skr, did I?

 

[Brian Legal]

Thanks to all who have posted.

I have been trying to reply but without success. Thank you very much John for calling and enlightening me on the finer points.

I just wanted to thank you for your input and some very forthright scenarios and views - much more than my original 750 words!

To round up from me, the VAT was paid in England on the second hand value of the boat. VAT was eventually paid based on the price at the date of "import" - a flexible expression, bearing in mind the fact that the vessel was never outside the EU - but the Revenue have to have a "chargeable event" in order to collect VAT and this is how they do it. They see this quite simply - can it be shown that VAT (or is equivalent) was ever been paid and if not, it must be paid.

The owner had his proof of payment and there was never any question of being liable for anyone else's VAT/ IVA. His beef was that he had bought the boat as advertised - VAT paid and could not sell it as such. It was worth considerably less than he paid and he had not bought it from Currys or Dixons!

There was never any allegation of smuggling. The boat was taken to Spain and the owner (from new) genuinely thought that he had paid the VAT. He gave the money to his agent, who didn't hand it over. This fraud equates to never having paid the VAT. He did have a very genuine looking certificate, which is why the boat (and the certificate) changed hands several times before the fraud was discovered.

It's been good to hear from you all and I woudl like to pop again. What about the 24m / commercial endorsement issue??

Best wishes

Brian

 

[jfm]

Re the inane need to know or the relevance of my taste in boats and your unfathomable assumption that you know so much about me,can I suggest you read my previous post?

LOL, call it inane if you wish, but surely it isn't a need, just a slight curiosity.
Not even enough to check any of your previous posts - I'm fine with those in this thread, which I did read...

Accusing you mapis of making an "assumption" when you actually said (in #90) it was a "wild guess" is a bit aarsey imho.

 

[MapisM]

'salright. We perverse idiot types have a thick skin, you know...

 

[jfm]

'salright. We perverse idiot types have a thick skin, you know...

slick!

I meant to say on other thread (forgot which one) that perverse and pervert are wildy different things. Far be it from me to criticise your utterly fantastic English MapisM but I chuckled at that mix up. I think I have used the word "perverse" a few times on here over the years, probably towards VAT lawyers or something, and I'm sitting here thinking that over all those years you've been thinking that I was saying they have sex wth goats.

 

[benjenbav]

Martin I agree with SW on this and I think you're a damn fine man (or woman?) too

Only at the weekends...now where did I put my lippy?

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

I think I have used the word "perverse" a few times on here over the years, probably towards VAT lawyers or something, and I'm sitting here thinking that over all those years you've been thinking that I was saying they have sex wth goats.

... and your point is?

Cheers
Jimmy

 

[MapisM]

I'm sitting here thinking that over all those years you've been thinking that I was saying they have sex wth goats.

Hehe, so what? I know some lawyers for which I wouldn't be surprised to discover that they have such habits...

 

[benjenbav]

Thanks to all who have posted.

What about the 24m / commercial endorsement issue??

Now you're talking. There was an interesting thread on here a few months ago on that very subject.

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=287026

 

[Tranona]

Hehe, so what? I know some lawyers for which I wouldn't be surprised to discover that they have such habits...

They are probably Welsh.

 

[jfm]

Thanks to all who have posted.

I have been trying to reply but without success. Thank you very much John for calling and enlightening me on the finer points.

I just wanted to thank you for your input and some very forthright scenarios and views - much more than my original 750 words!

To round up from me, the VAT was paid in England on the second hand value of the boat. VAT was eventually paid based on the price at the date of "import" - a flexible expression, bearing in mind the fact that the vessel was never outside the EU - but the Revenue have to have a "chargeable event" in order to collect VAT and this is how they do it. They see this quite simply - can it be shown that VAT (or is equivalent) was ever been paid and if not, it must be paid.

The owner had his proof of payment and there was never any question of being liable for anyone else's VAT/ IVA. His beef was that he had bought the boat as advertised - VAT paid and could not sell it as such. It was worth considerably less than he paid and he had not bought it from Currys or Dixons!

There was never any allegation of smuggling. The boat was taken to Spain and the owner (from new) genuinely thought that he had paid the VAT. He gave the money to his agent, who didn't hand it over. This fraud equates to never having paid the VAT. He did have a very genuine looking certificate, which is why the boat (and the certificate) changed hands several times before the fraud was discovered.

It's been good to hear from you all and I woudl like to pop again. What about the 24m / commercial endorsement issue??

Best wishes

Brian

Brian thanks for replying. I suspect as a newly-registered user your posts are delayed due to moderators wishing to check them, which is quite a nuisance on a thread like this. I hope the mods can fix that

I don't know who John is - not me.

On the VAT I suspect we have done it to death. To round up from me I am amazed at your overall position on this. You know there was a failure to pay Spanish VAT several years ago, and you say that paying some VAT voluntarily in the UK (in a much smaller £ sum, incidentally) extinguishes that. It doesn't Brian. The Spanish are still owed that VAT. Sure it is unlikely they will discover it but that can be said of a lot of unpaid VAT in all countries. That boat is not "VAT paid" becuase there is still an outstanding claim on it which can result in it being seized. I can see that you seem to ignore this point, and it's very apparent that you're not able to explain to me why I am wrong.

Separately, you have the name of the first owner of the boat and you know he owes unpaid IVA to the Spanish government and you came across all that info in the course of your work in the regulated sector. You know what I'm getting at?

Regarding the 24m question discussed at LIBS with Hugo and MYAG, shall I email the precise question to you on your office email, then you can consider using it for your next column in MBY, and after that we could discuss it in a thread on here?

 

[Observer]

He doesn't gettit. Never has. Never will.

Great thread tho'. Kept me amused for ages.