carlton
Well-Known Member
/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Red Diesel consultation
- Thread starter rickp
- Start date
colvic987
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Will we all wait till they cut our willy's off and fry the attached balls, & then stuff the results up our bottoms?
[/ QUOTE ]
Then watch the fall in boat sales, as many people would then have to give up their hobbies, as the cost would be ott, and they would then end up as marina caravans..
Will we all wait till they cut our willy's off and fry the attached balls, & then stuff the results up our bottoms?
[/ QUOTE ]
Then watch the fall in boat sales, as many people would then have to give up their hobbies, as the cost would be ott, and they would then end up as marina caravans..
Major Catastrophe
Well-Known Member
Strangely, for an HMRC report, there is an air of despair about the subject. They have put up three options and effectively shot all three down in flames, recognising that all have serious problems attached to them.
However, whilst addressing the problems with liveaboards, they gloss over the right for 'ordinary' boaters to enjoy tax reduced heating fuel. Okay, so it's not a lot of fuel/money, but they will still be taking away the right to tax reduced heating, which I think will be unlawful and open to legal challenge.
Does anyone have access to the Impact Assessment of HMRC compliance costs mentioned in the report, as I suspect they already know that for the sake of £16m revenue, that policing and investigation of any option is going to be £17m, or thereabouts? I also suspect their figures relating to loss of revenue and growth to both the marine industry and the HMRC through the doubling of fuel prices, do not make encouraging reading.
It seems to me to be a lot of administration that will produce not one penny extra to the exchequer, will impose a huge workload on the HMRC, the suppliers and probably the boat owners if they go for Option B.
Of course, the most sensible route, taking into account that leisure marine diesel accounts for a "negligible" amount of pollution and that a switch to white diesel would be unworkable because of dye residues and the continuing availability of red in the CI's, would be to tell the EU to go and swivel.
It is time this country regained its backbone and started challenging some of the more stupid rules undemocratically imposed on us.
However, whilst addressing the problems with liveaboards, they gloss over the right for 'ordinary' boaters to enjoy tax reduced heating fuel. Okay, so it's not a lot of fuel/money, but they will still be taking away the right to tax reduced heating, which I think will be unlawful and open to legal challenge.
Does anyone have access to the Impact Assessment of HMRC compliance costs mentioned in the report, as I suspect they already know that for the sake of £16m revenue, that policing and investigation of any option is going to be £17m, or thereabouts? I also suspect their figures relating to loss of revenue and growth to both the marine industry and the HMRC through the doubling of fuel prices, do not make encouraging reading.
It seems to me to be a lot of administration that will produce not one penny extra to the exchequer, will impose a huge workload on the HMRC, the suppliers and probably the boat owners if they go for Option B.
Of course, the most sensible route, taking into account that leisure marine diesel accounts for a "negligible" amount of pollution and that a switch to white diesel would be unworkable because of dye residues and the continuing availability of red in the CI's, would be to tell the EU to go and swivel.
It is time this country regained its backbone and started challenging some of the more stupid rules undemocratically imposed on us.
Sneds
Well-Known Member
Have to agree with RD and the Major.
But without wishing to sound defeatist, what the hell can be done?
But without wishing to sound defeatist, what the hell can be done?
Andrew_Fanner
Well-Known Member
>>>
Does anyone have access to the Impact Assessment of HMRC compliance costs mentioned in the report, as I suspect they already know that for the sake of £16m revenue, that policing and investigation of any option is going to be £17m, or thereabouts? I also suspect their figures relating to loss of revenue and growth to both the marine industry and the HMRC through the doubling of fuel prices, do not make encouraging reading.
>>>
Speculation is rising about a snap election in the next few months. Might, possibly, be one of those times when MPs do pay brief attention to people's issues. Maybe even a letter directly to the PM? Anyone here from his constituency?
"Dear Mr Prudent Brown.
Were you aware that the EU is making the UK spend £17M to collect £16M. The cpst of collection will rise with inflation but the take will fall as people can no longer afford to purchase the taxed fuel. This seems foolish and I wonder if there is anything you can do, such as telling the EU that its rules are unworkable in this instance as the cost of compliance is in excess of any revenue gain. Given that the revenue amounts to 0.06% of total oil revenue the whole process makes you look ppetty and mean, which in a possible election year is just not sensible. While some of your party may (incorrectly) asume boaters to be rich Tory voters I draw your attention to the large numbers who cruise the inland waterways in the Midlands and North of England, as well as the equally large numbers of people who make many sacrifices to have a boat of any form. My, and probably many other, votes may well be influenced by your response."
Or soething like that.
Does anyone have access to the Impact Assessment of HMRC compliance costs mentioned in the report, as I suspect they already know that for the sake of £16m revenue, that policing and investigation of any option is going to be £17m, or thereabouts? I also suspect their figures relating to loss of revenue and growth to both the marine industry and the HMRC through the doubling of fuel prices, do not make encouraging reading.
>>>
Speculation is rising about a snap election in the next few months. Might, possibly, be one of those times when MPs do pay brief attention to people's issues. Maybe even a letter directly to the PM? Anyone here from his constituency?
"Dear Mr Prudent Brown.
Were you aware that the EU is making the UK spend £17M to collect £16M. The cpst of collection will rise with inflation but the take will fall as people can no longer afford to purchase the taxed fuel. This seems foolish and I wonder if there is anything you can do, such as telling the EU that its rules are unworkable in this instance as the cost of compliance is in excess of any revenue gain. Given that the revenue amounts to 0.06% of total oil revenue the whole process makes you look ppetty and mean, which in a possible election year is just not sensible. While some of your party may (incorrectly) asume boaters to be rich Tory voters I draw your attention to the large numbers who cruise the inland waterways in the Midlands and North of England, as well as the equally large numbers of people who make many sacrifices to have a boat of any form. My, and probably many other, votes may well be influenced by your response."
Or soething like that.
Major Catastrophe
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Were you aware that the EU is making the UK spend £17M to collect £16M.
[/ QUOTE ] I made that figure up to illustrate a point that the cost of implementing two revenue collections regimes from one fuel pump was not going to be cheap. So don't quote the figure.
Were you aware that the EU is making the UK spend £17M to collect £16M.
[/ QUOTE ] I made that figure up to illustrate a point that the cost of implementing two revenue collections regimes from one fuel pump was not going to be cheap. So don't quote the figure.
jhr
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I made that figure up
[/ QUOTE ] Have you ever considered a career with the Daily Mail? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I made that figure up
[/ QUOTE ] Have you ever considered a career with the Daily Mail? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Andrew_Fanner
Well-Known Member
I do recall that HMRC were not of the opinion that there would be anything other than a very marginal gain form the revenue after cost of collection was deducted and that it was one of their points when the whole derogation thing was raised.
Major Catastrophe
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I made that figure up
[/ QUOTE ] Have you ever considered a career with the Daily Mail? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I am a journalist and I defend my right to make things up to support my argument. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
But, as Andrew says, HMRC already knows that the cost of implementation will negate the potential revenue, and with all things Nu-Labour - once the usually poorly thought out legislation is in place, the cost of policing, application, correspondence, enforcement, checks and appeals, will probably bring them a nett loss. The HMRC do not have their heart in this matter as they cannot forecast substantial revenues from it. Let's face it, £16m is hardly an amount for them to get passionate enough.
It is a mess and it will get even more messy come December next year.
[ QUOTE ]
I made that figure up
[/ QUOTE ] Have you ever considered a career with the Daily Mail? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I am a journalist and I defend my right to make things up to support my argument. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
But, as Andrew says, HMRC already knows that the cost of implementation will negate the potential revenue, and with all things Nu-Labour - once the usually poorly thought out legislation is in place, the cost of policing, application, correspondence, enforcement, checks and appeals, will probably bring them a nett loss. The HMRC do not have their heart in this matter as they cannot forecast substantial revenues from it. Let's face it, £16m is hardly an amount for them to get passionate enough.
It is a mess and it will get even more messy come December next year.
Nickcf
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
They say that they cannot supply the same fuel for different uses at different levels of duty, presumably to rule out just levelling the .20 duty hike onto red.
So surely they can only charge road duty at 48ppl not 54ppl?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not clear though why they couldn't alter the tax on existing red diesel to the minimum required under EU law (around 20p) and charge all users the new rate. Commercial users claim the tax back but the lower level of tax minimises the cash flow impact which results (the arguement is made in the document that charging commercial users 54.68p tax is not viable because of cash flow problems).
Red remains so no new tanks or pumps needed by fuel suppliers and the lower tax rate would reduce the need to cobble up a method of forcing houseboat users to fit a second tank or prove how much they use for heating/lighting. The doc says that about 60% of fuel is used for non propulsion purposes so this would even out if the tax rate was the minimum rather than road level or non ULSD level.
Would seem the simplest and least commercial impact on most users and suppliers and compliance enforcement would be no different that i can see?
They say that they cannot supply the same fuel for different uses at different levels of duty, presumably to rule out just levelling the .20 duty hike onto red.
So surely they can only charge road duty at 48ppl not 54ppl?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not clear though why they couldn't alter the tax on existing red diesel to the minimum required under EU law (around 20p) and charge all users the new rate. Commercial users claim the tax back but the lower level of tax minimises the cash flow impact which results (the arguement is made in the document that charging commercial users 54.68p tax is not viable because of cash flow problems).
Red remains so no new tanks or pumps needed by fuel suppliers and the lower tax rate would reduce the need to cobble up a method of forcing houseboat users to fit a second tank or prove how much they use for heating/lighting. The doc says that about 60% of fuel is used for non propulsion purposes so this would even out if the tax rate was the minimum rather than road level or non ULSD level.
Would seem the simplest and least commercial impact on most users and suppliers and compliance enforcement would be no different that i can see?
Gumpy
Well-Known Member
What I find interesting is that if the HMRC prefered option goes through my situation will be as follows:
Tank 1 engine red diesel taxed at 57pL
Tank 2 heating red diesel taxed at 7pL
Both tanks will have the same fuel in them.......... /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
There will be absoloutely no way that this can be policed so really we are back to square one /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Julian
Tank 1 engine red diesel taxed at 57pL
Tank 2 heating red diesel taxed at 7pL
Both tanks will have the same fuel in them.......... /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
There will be absoloutely no way that this can be policed so really we are back to square one /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Julian
TrueBlue
Well-Known Member
Not give in quietly -
I have nearly to hand an article in a flying magazine which discusses the fact that the private flying lobby is going for a "special case" pleading that AvGas is a special fuel for minority users and apparently there are mechanisms to allow that. It was also suggested that the AvTur users might also follow suit.
Boaters are just such a minority, so shouldn't BMF and the RYA follow this one up?
I have nearly to hand an article in a flying magazine which discusses the fact that the private flying lobby is going for a "special case" pleading that AvGas is a special fuel for minority users and apparently there are mechanisms to allow that. It was also suggested that the AvTur users might also follow suit.
Boaters are just such a minority, so shouldn't BMF and the RYA follow this one up?
Hurricane
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
What I find interesting is that if the HMRC prefered option goes through my situation will be as follows:
Tank 1 engine red diesel taxed at 57pL
Tank 2 heating red diesel taxed at 7pL
Both tanks will have the same fuel in them..........
There will be absoloutely no way that this can be policed so really we are back to square one
[/ QUOTE ]
My guess is that you will find it difficult to actually buy the Red (at 7ppl duty) as all the outlets will be selling the same stuff but with higher tax and probably be made to account for it - I suppose you could transport your own that you get thro' agricultural suppliers but in most cases thats a lot of fuel to transport.
What I find interesting is that if the HMRC prefered option goes through my situation will be as follows:
Tank 1 engine red diesel taxed at 57pL
Tank 2 heating red diesel taxed at 7pL
Both tanks will have the same fuel in them..........
There will be absoloutely no way that this can be policed so really we are back to square one
[/ QUOTE ]
My guess is that you will find it difficult to actually buy the Red (at 7ppl duty) as all the outlets will be selling the same stuff but with higher tax and probably be made to account for it - I suppose you could transport your own that you get thro' agricultural suppliers but in most cases thats a lot of fuel to transport.