Red Diesel - HMRC defence in EU

[Greg2]

Just received this update from the RYA

http://www.rya.org.uk/newsevents/ne...e=emailCampaign&utm_content=&utm_medium=email

It seems that the EU is referring the case to the Court of Justice. Be interesting to see if it makes it pre- EU exit

 

[oldgit]

Discussing this last night in club. Question was, Do you think HMG is going to give up single farthing of this self collected tax. ?

 

[Tranona]

Discussing this last night in club. Question was, Do you think HMG is going to give up single farthing of this self collected tax. ?

The issue with the EU is little to do with tax, but to do with making diesel readily available to all boaters around the country, exactly as it says in the document in the link.

 

[oldgit]

The issue with the EU is little to do with tax, but to do with making diesel readily available to all boaters around the country, exactly as it says in the document in the link.

...understand your point.
but suspect any significant interest in this matter on this forum is much to do with the rate at which tax is levied on marine fuel and wether HMG will continue the derogation, do away with it altogether or ....something completely different with a forlorn hope from exiteers that things could go back to the way they were before ?

 

[Tranona]

...understand your point.
but suspect any significant interest in this matter on this forum is much to do with the rate at which tax is levied on marine fuel and wether HMG will continue the derogation, do away with it altogether or ....something completely different with a forlorn hope from exiteers that things could go back to the way they were before ?

Who knows what is going to happen in the future. Suspect this issue will be pretty low on the list of priorities, but at least there is hope that the decision, whatever it is, will be taken here. This is one (relatively trivial) example of an EU policy that ignores a specific situation in a member state.

 

[longjohnsilver]

Who knows what is going to happen in the future. Suspect this issue will be pretty low on the list of priorities, but at least there is hope that the decision, whatever it is, will be taken here. This is one (relatively trivial) example of an EU policy that ignores a specific situation in a member state.

The issue will doubtless remain re the fining of boats in various European countries that are found to contain red diesel in their tanks. Once Brexit has happened we will have no influence as to how and where this happens.

 

[oldgit]

Bit of a mystery why a special rate of tax originally to be only used to help the fish and farm industries put food on the table during hard times should be enjoyed by a fortunate few able to afford a boat ...or not ?

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

The issue with the EU is little to do with tax, but to do with making diesel readily available to all boaters around the country, exactly as it says in the document in the link.

Not entirely true. Yes the reason for the derogation is the cost that UK fuel suppliers would incur setting up facilities for dispensing white marine diesel and the risk that many fuel suppliers wouldnt bother with that, leaving leisure boaters without fuel in some areas of the country. However the basis of the EU's complaint is that by making lower duty red diesel available to UK boaters, the UK govt is effectively subsidising the UK marine industry which is against EU competition rules. Yes it will be interesting to see what happens to this case post Brexit, especially given the fact that the UK govt may have to agree to mirror EU competition rules in order to negotiate a trade deal.

And I'm still waiting for the newspapers to get hold of the story that rich gin palace owners are able to run their gas guzzlers on cheap red diesel whilst 'hard working families' have to pay full price for diesel to keep their family cars going

 

[oldgit]

so no exporting Fairlines and Princess to EU countries due to the unfair subsidies eh..
Bet the Italians cannot wait for us to snuggle up to that special person on the other side of the pond just dying to hoover up all our ex EU imports
We present saviour of the exiteers.....Mr Donald Trump ESQ.

That was a cunning plan wasnt it Mr Farage ?

 

[Tranona]

The issue will doubtless remain re the fining of boats in various European countries that are found to contain red diesel in their tanks. Once Brexit has happened we will have no influence as to how and where this happens.

There is very little evidence that boats from outside the EU have been fined for using red diesel when visiting the EU. Most states do not make an issue of it and seems only Germany, Holland and Belgium have done in the past, but not currently.

At the moment the UK has no influence on EU policy. The argument is whether our law meets the EU directive, hence the court case.

 

[Tranona]

Not entirely true. Yes the reason for the derogation is the cost that UK fuel suppliers would incur setting up facilities for dispensing white marine diesel and the risk that many fuel suppliers wouldnt bother with that, leaving leisure boaters without fuel in some areas of the country. However the basis of the EU's complaint is that by making lower duty red diesel available to UK boaters, the UK govt is effectively subsidising the UK marine industry which is against EU competition rules. Yes it will be interesting to see what happens to this case post Brexit, especially given the fact that the UK govt may have to agree to mirror EU competition rules in order to negotiate a trade deal.

And I'm still waiting for the newspapers to get hold of the story that rich gin palace owners are able to run their gas guzzlers on cheap red diesel whilst 'hard working families' have to pay full price for diesel to keep their family cars going

While one of the original reasons for the directive was competition that is not the issue in the current case with the UK which is about whether our law that enacts the directive is correct.

There won't be much of a story because the rich boat owners pay full duty on the proportion of the fuel they buy which is used for propulsion. If there was a Daily Wail story it would have surfaced by now as the issue has been live for several years, and is now in the EU courts.

Neither events have stimulated any interest in the general press even though anything that involves the EU seems to excite journalists.

 

[IDAMAY]

It seems to me that this is just the sort of pettifogging issue that caused many of us to consider voting leave. What possible advantage to mankind can there be in the EU succeeding in its case. The only advantage accrues to the EU in not seeing its rules ignored. It matters not that the rules don't make sense.

Having said that I wouldn't bet my pension on HMG not enforcing the ruling if it goes against them even if we are on the very verge of leaving.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

There won't be much of a story because the rich boat owners pay full duty on the proportion of the fuel they buy which is used for propulsion.

The RYA did a magnificent job hoodwinking HMRC into agreeing to that one. I should employ them as my tax accountants. Anyone who thinks that 60% of the fuel on a gas guzzling motor boat is used for propulsion and 40% for heating has never owned a motor boat

 

[oldgit]

"There won't be much of a story because the rich boat owners pay full duty on the proportion of the fuel they buy which is used for propulsion"


Err.. Mr "JAM" pays around £1.30 per litre for his Ford Mondeo in order to get to his minimum wage zero hours contract employment.

The owner of a Princess 35 pays 78 p a litre to run a toy and even less to top up the totally seperate (of course) eberspacher heating tank.
H,mm.

 

[Tranona]

"There won't be much of a story because the rich boat owners pay full duty on the proportion of the fuel they buy which is used for propulsion"


Err.. Mr "JAM" pays around £1.30 per litre for his Ford Mondeo in order to get to his minimum wage zero hours contract employment.

The owner of a Princess 35 pays 78 p a litre to run a toy and even less to top up the totally seperate (of course) eberspacher heating tank.
H,mm.

But it still does not make a story, even if you are selective with the way you interpret the rules. You have to do something more interesting in your luxury yacht like crashing it or being caught shagging your mate's girlfriend to get a spot in the press.

 

[oldgit]

But it still does not make a story, even if you are selective with the way you interpret the rules. You have to do something more interesting in your luxury yacht like crashing it or being caught shagging your mate's girlfriend to get a spot in the press.

much prefer your second option to the first..will tell the wife you mentioned it.....

 

[gjgm]

The RYA did a magnificent job hoodwinking HMRC into agreeing to that one. I should employ them as my tax accountants. Anyone who thinks that 60% of the fuel on a gas guzzling motor boat is used for propulsion and 40% for heating has never owned a motor boat

You must be boating abroad where you go somewhere and don't sit in the marina in the rain with the heating on !,

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

You must be boating abroad where you go somewhere and don't sit in the marina in the rain with the heating on !,

A midrange D4 Eberspacher heater apparently uses 0.25lph on its medium setting so if you left it on all day and all night, thats 6l of fuel used. Thats enough fuel to keep my boat going for less than 2 mins at 20kts

60/40 youre having a laugh

 

[Greg2]

The RYA did a magnificent job hoodwinking HMRC into agreeing to that one. I should employ them as my tax accountants. Anyone who thinks that 60% of the fuel on a gas guzzling motor boat is used for propulsion and 40% for heating has never owned a motor boat

It is a difficult one to argue but is there a point about the tax regime on fuel being based on what people have to spend to travel ‘x’ distance in a car whereas a boat operates in an entirely different sepctrum? Added to that whilst boats are clearly a luxury the industry that provides them supports employment and is part of the economy and there are probably many people in the chain who simply couldn’t afford to run a boat at full duty rates. Without them the used market might not be so viable....perhaps.

Just a thought that maybe it isn’t as simple an issue as rich people running gas guzzling luxury items

 

[oldgit]

It is a difficult one to argue but is there a point about the tax regime on fuel being based on what people have to spend to travel ‘x’ distance in a car whereas a boat operates in an entirely different sepctrum? Added to that whilst boats are clearly a luxury the industry that provides them supports employment and is part of the economy and there are probably many people in the chain who simply couldn’t afford to run a boat at full duty rates. Without them the used market might not be so viable....perhaps.

Just a thought that maybe it isn’t as simple an issue as rich people running gas guzzling luxury items

If you applied that to any other industry it would quite rightly be called subsidy ?