New tax for foreign yachts based in Greece from 1st January 2014????

[sailaboutvic]

Jim there was talk about this tax at the end of sept / oct , you right not on the forum but between sailor in Greece as well as in Sardinia where we was at the time ,the info was I understand coming from the Germany Assoc , I some where have email to this effect . I think . If I not deleted it

 

[Steve C Cronin]

I think that the difference between some of the views being put here recently and those held by the German sailing associations is that in some way, the Brits think it "OK" or "Playing the Game" or "being good chaps" in helping out the greeks in time of their monetary difficulties almost as if we had a duty to do so. The Germans on the other hand take the view that it is their own problem and only their own people should get them out of it. I support the latter view and do not consider that I have ANY duty to support Greece out of my own pocket; I pay them enough already. Let them devise a more selective and "surgical" method of collecting their own taxes from their own. In effect, let them go spear fishing instead of trawling!

 

[Tony Cross]

I think that the difference between some of the views being put here recently and those held by the German sailing associations is that in some way, the Brits think it "OK" or "Playing the Game" or "being good chaps" in helping out the greeks in time of their monetary difficulties almost as if we had a duty to do so. The Germans on the other hand take the view that it is their own problem and only their own people should get them out of it. I support the latter view and do not consider that I have ANY duty to support Greece out of my own pocket; I pay them enough already. Let them devise a more selective and "surgical" method of collecting their own taxes from their own. In effect, let them go spear fishing instead of trawling!

I don't see it as "supporting Greece" at all. This a tax that has been introduced by the Greek government, I don't like it but I understand why it was introduced and like all other non-Greeks I either have to pay it or leave. That is the way of all taxes. I don't see you complaining for example, that VAT at 23% is higher in Greece than in the UK and that somehow you are paying to support Greece and that extra 3% should not come out of your own pocket.

I also don't believe that the CA, or any other British association, has a "playing the game" or "being good chaps" attitude any more than any other nationality does. What has happened with this tax is that the CA has chosen not to adopt a knee-jerk and ill considered response but has instead carefully analysed the construction and impact of this tax in the light of previous attempts at a similar tax. With the input of people with considerable knowledge and experience on the matter they have chosen what they consider to be the best and most effective course of action. I am quite certain that had the considered opinion been that outright opposition was likely to be effective then that is what the CA would have done.

 

[Peio64]

I don't see it as "supporting Greece" at all. This a tax that has been introduced by the Greek government, I don't like it but I understand why it was introduced and like all other non-Greeks I either have to pay it or leave. That is the way of all taxes. I don't see you complaining for example, that VAT at 23% is higher in Greece than in the UK and that somehow you are paying to support Greece and that extra 3% should not come out of your own pocket.

I also don't believe that the CA, or any other British association, has a "playing the game" or "being good chaps" attitude any more than any other nationality does. What has happened with this tax is that the CA has chosen not to adopt a knee-jerk and ill considered response but has instead carefully analysed the construction and impact of this tax in the light of previous attempts at a similar tax. With the input of people with considerable knowledge and experience on the matter they have chosen what they consider to be the best and most effective course of action. I am quite certain that had the considered opinion been that outright opposition was likely to be effective then that is what the CA would have done.

Hi, Tony

There is enough legal precedents (most of them about Greece) for considering that at least the directive 83/182/CEE make this law unacceptable for boats flying EU flags, ownned by residents of EU countries outside of Greece and sailing Greek waters not longer than 6 months.

As far as it concerns, I think, a large majority of EU boats which will be theoretically affected by the tax, I do not understand why the CA do not use this directive for a complaint against the law at the EC. This sould be very likely successful and would have the virtue of leading to a cancellation of the present law, cancellation which is also relevant to boats not "temporarily imported".

Maybe you have you have your reasons, but they are presently anything except clear to me.

Peio
Haize Egoa

 

[sailaboutvic]

What I don't seen to understand is , the people on here that keep saying this tax is legal , have there got some expect training in EU law to claim that ? and if so let the rest of in on it please , just because a EU country bring in a law it don't mean it not breaking EU rules as we seen time and time again countries taken to the EU courts , after with the law being removed .
Greece it self have tried bring in the tax twice before and if no one did any thing about it we would have been pay it for some years now ,
In some way I feel a bit sorry for the CA as there have got a lot of stick on here and as Jim as pointed out the RYA is the body that represents British boats I support the different is , it the CA who have told us that there have told the Greeks that they except the tax . Not a good move .

 

[Steve C Cronin]

I don't see it as "supporting Greece" at all. This a tax that has been introduced by the Greek government, I don't like it but I understand why it was introduced and like all other non-Greeks I either have to pay it or leave. That is the way of all taxes. I don't see you complaining for example, that VAT at 23% is higher in Greece than in the UK and that somehow you are paying to support Greece and that extra 3% should not come out of your own pocket.

I also don't believe that the CA, or any other British association, has a "playing the game" or "being good chaps" attitude any more than any other nationality does. What has happened with this tax is that the CA has chosen not to adopt a knee-jerk and ill considered response but has instead carefully analysed the construction and impact of this tax in the light of previous attempts at a similar tax. With the input of people with considerable knowledge and experience on the matter they have chosen what they consider to be the best and most effective course of action. I am quite certain that had the considered opinion been that outright opposition was likely to be effective then that is what the CA would have done.

The previous attempts at a tax on boats were met with hostility and aggression which is why the Greeks had to abandon them. You and the CA just want to lie down and take it. As to VAT, it is charged on just about everything in most European countries and rates will inevitably vary - remember the 25% "Luxury Tax" that was imposed in our country early on? However, this boat tax is just aimed at boats (why not bikes or lawnmowers or your wife's jewellery?) and is NOT charged by other governments and is an ANNUAL charge, NOT a one-off like VAT. It is therefore, by it's nature discriminatory. The Greek government is on record as saying that it wanted to tax the hidden wealth of it's richer citizens and that is why it was introduced. I have no issue with that approach but they are catching others, foreigners, who ae NOT their domestic tax dodgers.

If I am forced to pay it, I will do so with bad grace, ever reminding the Greeks that they are in effect guilty of piracy by demanding a ransom to allow me to go freely upon the waters. It could also be termed a "Protection Racket"!

 

[jimbaerselman]

In some way I feel a bit sorry for the CA as there have got a lot of stick on here and as Jim as pointed out the RYA is the body that represents British boats

As I said, the RYA (with 30 times the resources of the CA) and the European Boating Union have "written to the Greek Government". Whether they will follow that up with action through the European courts (which takes a very long time, and is very expensive) is another matter.

the different is , it the CA who have told us that there have told the Greeks that they except the tax . Not a good move .

No, we haven't told the Ministry that we accept the tax. We pointed out all of its disadvantages. We then clarified the wording of the tax, and as a result were able to advise our members (and any other yachting visitors to Greece) how to minimise their tax payments if/when it is introduced in its present form.

 

[Peio64]

As I said, the RYA (with 30 times the resources of the CA) and the European Boating Union have "written to the Greek Government". Whether they will follow that up with action through the European courts (which takes a very long time, and is very expensive) is another matter.

Jim, you sould read this :

http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/your_rights/your_rights_en.htm

Amongst many other things, it is said that :

"Anyone may lodge a complaint with the Commission against a Member State for any measure (law, regulation or administrative action) or practice attributable to a Member State which they consider incompatible with a provision or a principle of EU law.
(...)
"Complaints must be submitted in writing, by letter, fax or e mail."
(...)
"Any correspondence denouncing measures or practices by a Member State which it considers incompatible with a provision or principle of Community law must be examined within a month regarding the decision to classify it as a complaint."
(...)
" If the Commission considers that there may be an infringement of EU law which warrants the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a "letter of formal notice" to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations by a specified date.

The Member State has to adopt a position on the points of fact and of law on which the Commission bases its decision to open the infringement procedure.

In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to address a "reasoned opinion" to the Member State, clearly and definitively setting out the reasons why it considers there to have been an infringement of EU law and calling on the Member State to comply with EU law within a specified period (normally two months).

The purpose of those formal contacts is to determine whether there is indeed an infringement of EU law and, if so, to resolve the case at this stage without having to take it to the Court of Justice.

In the light of the reply, the Commission may also decide not to proceed with the infringement procedure, for example where the Member State provides credible assurances as to its intention to amend its legislation or administrative practice. Most cases can be resolved in this way.

2.3.Referral to the European Court of Justice

If the Member State fails to comply with the reasoned opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the European Court of Justice.

On average, it takes about two years for the Court of Justice to rule on cases brought by the Commission."

So, lodging a complaint against a member state is very simple and free of charge. Where do you learn that it is "expensive" ?

Furthermore, the expected result can be obtained relatively rapidly (some months) depending on the attitude of the member state concerned.

In the year 2000, we --and also Brit'-- have lodged with success a complaint against the first Greek tax on leisure boats. The Commission condemned this tax rather rapidly but, as the Greek State did not completely comply with the Commission's requirements, the case went in Court of Justice. Soon after what the Greek government removed "spontaneously" the totality of the law (in 2002). Meanwhile, we held a copy of the judgment of the Commission allowing us to refuse to pay the tax, what was the main goal of our action.

I wonder why not to try to repeat this operation. Any European country have plenty of legal reasons for disputing the present law right now.

Peio
Haize Egoa

 

[Chris_Robb]

Jim, you sould read this :

http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/your_rights/your_rights_en.htm

Amongst many other things, it is said that :

"Anyone may lodge a complaint with the Commission against a Member State for any measure (law, regulation or administrative action) or practice attributable to a Member State which they consider incompatible with a provision or a principle of EU law.
(...)
"Complaints must be submitted in writing, by letter, fax or e mail."
(...)
"Any correspondence denouncing measures or practices by a Member State which it considers incompatible with a provision or principle of Community law must be examined within a month regarding the decision to classify it as a complaint."
(...)
" If the Commission considers that there may be an infringement of EU law which warrants the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a "letter of formal notice" to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations by a specified date.

The Member State has to adopt a position on the points of fact and of law on which the Commission bases its decision to open the infringement procedure.

In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to address a "reasoned opinion" to the Member State, clearly and definitively setting out the reasons why it considers there to have been an infringement of EU law and calling on the Member State to comply with EU law within a specified period (normally two months).

The purpose of those formal contacts is to determine whether there is indeed an infringement of EU law and, if so, to resolve the case at this stage without having to take it to the Court of Justice.

In the light of the reply, the Commission may also decide not to proceed with the infringement procedure, for example where the Member State provides credible assurances as to its intention to amend its legislation or administrative practice. Most cases can be resolved in this way.

2.3.Referral to the European Court of Justice

If the Member State fails to comply with the reasoned opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the European Court of Justice.

On average, it takes about two years for the Court of Justice to rule on cases brought by the Commission."

So, lodging a complaint against a member state is very simple and free of charge. Where do you learn that it is "expensive" ?

Furthermore, the expected result can be obtained relatively rapidly (some months) depending on the attitude of the member state concerned.

In the year 2000, we --and also Brit'-- have lodged with success a complaint against the first Greek tax on leisure boats. The Commission condemned this tax rather rapidly but, as the Greek State did not completely comply with the Commission's requirements, the case went in Court of Justice. Soon after what the Greek government removed "spontaneously" the totality of the law (in 2002). Meanwhile, we held a copy of the judgment of the Commission allowing us to refuse to pay the tax, what was the main goal of our action.

I wonder why not to try to repeat this operation. Any European country have plenty of legal reasons for disputing the present law right now.

Peio
Haize Egoa

I suppose the answer to why the CA has not lodged a complaint is that we need the legal advice on what EU Regulation is being infringed. That legal advice is expensive. Even reading all the recent items in this thread, I cannot really see what they have got wrong legally - though I don't like to pay it either. Perhaps for the French paying the boat tax once in France and then again in Greece may be wrong - but only for those who stay less than 6 months.

The danger to long term boaters is that any action may draw attention to the tax situation of many longer term boaters. I personally don't care about that as I am well inside the limit.

But, I cannot see what I can complain about under EU law unless I pay for council advice - perhaps finding out £6000 later that there is nothing to complain about.

I am with the CA on this, though I did complain at the start that their letter was a "YES but" letter, rather than a "NO but" letter. But frankly the difference in results are irrelevant.

 

[Peio64]

I suppose the answer to why the CA has not lodged a complaint is that we need the legal advice on what EU Regulation is being infringed. That legal advice is expensive. Even reading all the recent items in this thread, I cannot really see what they have got wrong legally - though I don't like to pay it either. Perhaps for the French paying the boat tax once in France and then again in Greece may be wrong - but only for those who stay less than 6 months.

The danger to long term boaters is that any action may draw attention to the tax situation of many longer term boaters. I personally don't care about that as I am well inside the limit.

But, I cannot see what I can complain about under EU law unless I pay for council advice - perhaps finding out £6000 later that there is nothing to complain about.

I am with the CA on this, though I did complain at the start that their letter was a "YES but" letter, rather than a "NO but" letter. But frankly the difference in results are irrelevant.

Legally, they infringe clearly this (at least) :

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31983L0182&qid=1397579586710&from=EN

No need of a legal advice to see it. This is obvious (pleasure boats are listed).

Without any doubt you can complain about that if you personnaly stay in Greece less than 6 months/year. Your boat can stay there the whole year always without paying any tax if she is placed under customs control for the remaining 185 days of the year.

Both this "exemption of temporary import taxes" and the prohibition of double taxtation (which does not concern UK citizens) are only dependant on the residency of the owner/user, that's all and this is very simple. As far as you are not Greek resident, you have not to pay. If you stay in Greece more than 185 days/year, you become "Greek resident" and you have to pay all or part of Greek taxes (including on your income, eventually), depending both on Greek laws and on fiscal treaties.

Thus the CA would make a good job if it tried to negociate the tax for those of foreigners who are Greek residents while, in the same time, if it complained for those who are citizens of an other EU country and who visit Greece for less than 6 months/year.
I do not see any reason why I should pay like a Greek resident nor why the CA refuses to make the distinction between the two categories of sailors.

Further, if the law is cancelled because of its inadequacy with "exemption of temporary import taxes" directive, it should have to be re-written by the Greek parliament. To wait for this new version would be also beneficial for Greek residents....

Peio
Haize Egoa

 

[Peio64]

I suppose the answer to why the CA has not lodged a complaint is that we need the legal advice on what EU Regulation is being infringed. That legal advice is expensive.

One more thing : the legal advice is free ! It is given by the Commission who accept or refuses the complaint.

Please see above :

"Any correspondence denouncing measures or practices by a Member State which it considers incompatible with a provision or principle of Community law must be examined within a month regarding the decision to classify it as a complaint."

" If the Commission considers that there may be an infringement of EU law which warrants the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a "letter of formal notice" to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations by a specified date."

No risk !

 

[Chris_Robb]

Legally, they infringe clearly this (at least) :

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31983L0182&qid=1397579586710&from=EN

No need of a legal advice to see it. This is obvious (pleasure boats are listed).

Without any doubt you can complain about that if you personnaly stay in Greece less than 6 months/year. Your boat can stay there the whole year always without paying any tax if she is placed under customs control for the remaining 185 days of the year.

Both this "exemption of temporary import taxes" and the prohibition of double taxtation (which does not concern UK citizens) are only dependant on the residency of the owner/user, that's all and this is very simple. As far as you are not Greek resident, you have not to pay. If you stay in Greece more than 185 days/year, you become "Greek resident" and you have to pay all or part of Greek taxes (including on your income, eventually), depending both on Greek laws and on fiscal treaties.

Thus the CA would make a good job if it tried to negociate the tax for those of foreigners who are Greek residents while, in the same time, if it complained for those who are citizens of an other EU country and who visit Greece for less than 6 months/year.
I do not see any reason why I should pay like a Greek resident nor why the CA refuses to make the distinction between the two categories of sailors.

Further, if the law is cancelled because of its inadequacy with "exemption of temporary import taxes" directive, it should have to be re-written by the Greek parliament. To wait for this new version would be also beneficial for Greek residents....

Peio
Haize Egoa

Not being much of a legal guy, I have clipped this bit from the EU article.

Article 1
Scope
1. Member States shall, under the conditions laid down below, exempt temporary imports from another Member State of motor-driven road vehicles (including their trailers), caravans, pleasure boats, private aircraft, bicycles, tricycles and saddle-horses from: - turnover tax, excise duties and any other consumption tax,
- the taxes listed in the Annex hereto

It seems to say that the article indeed does exempt pleasure boats. It does not mention anything about double tax - the French situation - it justs says EXEMPT.

Reading that, I would have therefore to Put the boat into customs bond each year. How the hell do I even start to work out how to do that.

You said earlier - that if everyone did this - the whole of Greek customs would come to a halt as they have no system for doing this - or is it as simple as handing your papers to port police (who are not customs).
So perhaps we should be making this claim to the EU., unless someone can show me an alternative meaning of Article 1

 

[westernman]

Not being much of a legal guy, I have clipped this bit from the EU article.

Article 1
Scope
1. Member States shall, under the conditions laid down below, exempt temporary imports from another Member State of motor-driven road vehicles (including their trailers), caravans, pleasure boats, private aircraft, bicycles, tricycles and saddle-horses from: - turnover tax, excise duties and any other consumption tax,
- the taxes listed in the Annex hereto

It seems to say that the article indeed does exempt pleasure boats. It does not mention anything about double tax - the French situation - it justs says EXEMPT.

Reading that, I would have therefore to Put the boat into customs bond each year. How the hell do I even start to work out how to do that.

You said earlier - that if everyone did this - the whole of Greek customs would come to a halt as they have no system for doing this - or is it as simple as handing your papers to port police (who are not customs).
So perhaps we should be making this claim to the EU., unless someone can show me an alternative meaning of Article 1

My reading of "exempt from turnover tax, excise duties and any other consumption tax" means that you do not have to pay import duty, VAT or sales tax when moving your boat there.

The way I see this tax, it is a bit like motorway tolls. Every body has to pay who wants to take that motorway.

 

[Chris_Robb]

My reading of "exempt from turnover tax, excise duties and any other consumption tax" means that you do not have to pay import duty, VAT or sales tax when moving your boat there.

The way I see this tax, it is a bit like motorway tolls. Every body has to pay who wants to take that motorway.

Yes - and that is the way the CA sees it, and actually how I see it - Just trying to bring out a discussion on the EU regulation to see what exactly is illegal.

Peio64, could you point us in the right direction as to what is illegal about this tax?

 

[Steve C Cronin]

Yes - and that is the way the CA sees it, and actually how I see it - Just trying to bring out a discussion on the EU regulation to see what exactly is illegal.

Peio64, could you point us in the right direction as to what is illegal about this tax?

You have to build motorways and maintain them but the sea is the sea or didn't you notice that?

 

[westernman]

You have to build motorways and maintain them but the sea is the sea or didn't you notice that?

You can't win the argument with that - with the sea you need to have a coast guard, port police, environment agencies to make sure you don't hurt the sea horses etc etc. That is why you need to pay to maintain that (as well as prop up the rest of the Greek economy).

 

[Steve C Cronin]

You can't win the argument with that - with the sea you need to have a coast guard, port police, environment agencies to make sure you don't hurt the sea horses etc etc. That is why you need to pay to maintain that (as well as prop up the rest of the Greek economy).

NO!!! Why should we be asked to prop up the Greek economy when it was their misuse which destroyed it? The UK and most other european states don't see the validity of charging for the agencies you mention so why should the sneaky Greeks get away with it? But we will "WIN our argument" as you put it, we who only tollerate fairness and honesty, you know that to be true! ( I doubt if the Greek PP give one sweet F..K about "the sea horses" BTW!)

 

[Glyka]

NO!!! Why should we be asked to prop up the Greek economy when it was their misuse which destroyed it? The UK and most other european states don't see the validity of charging for the agencies you mention so why should the sneaky Greeks get away with it? But we will "WIN our argument" as you put it, we who only tollerate fairness and honesty, you know that to be true! ( I doubt if the Greek PP give one sweet F..K about "the sea horses" BTW!)

Because our waters and our islands and our coasts are our assets and we have decided to charge for their use. If you want to use them you have to pay.
BTW, calling names and insulting people won't take you anywhere nice.

 

[Steve C Cronin]

Because our waters and our islands and our coasts are our assets and we have decided to charge for their use. If you want to use them you have to pay.
BTW, calling names and insulting people won't take you anywhere nice.

I suppose you have to. I can't see many of you doing an honest day's work to earn a crust!

 

[Peio64]

My reading of "exempt from turnover tax, excise duties and any other consumption tax" means that you do not have to pay import duty, VAT or sales tax when moving your boat there.

The way I see this tax, it is a bit like motorway tolls. Every body has to pay who wants to take that motorway.

Absolutely not.

I am formal : it includes circulation taxes and others. Anything "which could limit by some way the free circulation of EU citizens".

Please, before any talk, make the minimal effort of reading the legislation + the jurisprudence of the EU court about this topic.

Now, if your secrete wish is to pay the tax whatever its legacy, up to you.

Peio
Haize Egoa

P.S. And one more time, a tax is not a toll which is supposed (at least by international laws) to correspond to some service. European Commission makes the difference, beleive me.