Red Diesel - HMRC defence in EU

[maby]

My understanding is that it's revenue neutral, the amount of tax versus the costs of collecting, administering and enforcing. Remember it's not paid by commercial users, fishing boats or almost any of the very large motor boats.

I'm not clear how it costs HMRC anything to collect or administer. The fuel berth operators are the only people that know how much tax has been collected - they must simply tot it up and send off a cheque at the end of the month/quarter. The bulk of their sales are not subject to fuel duty - our tax on the 60% is just a useful bit of pocket money for the treasury - I doubt that they do much to confirm the numbers, knowing that they are pretty much fiction anyway!

 

[Tranona]

News to me that marked fuel should be kept in a tank which cannot supply the engine. I don't suppose you can provide any proof for your assertion?

That statement was confusing. It is acceptable to use marked fuel for heating on a boat IF it is stored in a dedicated tank and not connected to a propulsion system. Not quite the same as saying it has to be, or should be, as clearly this is impractical for most boats.

 

[CLB]

Does the very EU friendly Ireland still use green diesel?

 

[NormanS]

That statement was confusing. It is acceptable to use marked fuel for heating on a boat IF it is stored in a dedicated tank and not connected to a propulsion system. Not quite the same as saying it has to be, or should be, as clearly this is impractical for most boats.

That really doesn't mean a thing. It is also acceptable to use marked fuel for heating if it comes from the boat's main tank.
In this country you can have as many tanks as you like, and use them as it suits you. What you have to do is declare your percentages for propulsion/other uses, when you're buying the stuff.

 

[oldgit]

as with VAT, HMG merely sit back and wait for the money to arrive.
The fuel resellers are totally responsible for all costs to collect the tax at every stage and ensuring it arrives on time .
the up side is you are of course allowed to look after their money for a brief period.

 

[jfm]

That really doesn't mean a thing. It is also acceptable to use marked fuel for heating if it comes from the boat's main tank.
In this country you can have as many tanks as you like, and use them as it suits you. What you have to do is declare your percentages for propulsion/other uses, when you're buying the stuff.

This discussion is a bit mixed up and at crossed purposes.

Citizens have to obey the laws of the country they're in or subject to, and they do not have to obey EU directives. UK law says that there is no need to have a separate tank, so your statement Norman S in red above is 100% correct, provided "acceptable" means only acceptable behaviour by a citizen under the law of the land.

Now separately, the UK as a nation state is require to obey EU directives, which generally require states to pass local laws to create the outcome that the directive seeks. So, the only person who can be "in trouble" by not following the directive is the UK state itself, not its individual citizens. There is an EU directive that requires EU states to enact local laws stipulating that marked diesel be in a tank not connected to the engine. The UK is, arguably, in breach of that rule because it has not passed such a law. This failure to pass law isn't "acceptable" in the eyes of the EC and that is what the court action is about. The party "in the dock" is the UK state, not any person who has 60/40 and uses red in their engines, because such persons have not broken any law. Indeed, that's the very point: the fact that it is (as Norman S says) legal in UK to burn red in propulsion engines is the very thing that the EC is complaining about.

The action is all about how UK law stipulates the selling/carrying/usage or marked diesel, and isn't about the 60/40 thing per se.

 

[NormanS]

This discussion is a bit mixed up and at crossed purposes.

Citizens have to obey the laws of the country they're in or subject to, and they do not have to obey EU directives. UK law says that there is no need to have a separate tank, so your statement Norman S in red above is 100% correct, provided "acceptable" means only acceptable behaviour by a citizen under the law of the land.

Now separately, the UK as a nation state is require to obey EU directives, which generally require states to pass local laws to create the outcome that the directive seeks. So, the only person who can be "in trouble" by not following the directive is the UK state itself, not its individual citizens. There is an EU directive that requires EU states to enact local laws stipulating that marked diesel be in a tank not connected to the engine. The UK is, arguably, in breach of that rule because it has not passed such a law. This failure to pass law isn't "acceptable" in the eyes of the EC and that is what the court action is about. The party "in the dock" is the UK state, not any person who has 60/40 and uses red in their engines, because such persons have not broken any law. Indeed, that's the very point: the fact that it is (as Norman S says) legal in UK to burn red in propulsion engines is the very thing that the EC is complaining about.

The action is all about how UK law stipulates the selling/carrying/usage or marked diesel, and isn't about the 60/40 thing per se.

If you are in this country (UK), you have to comply with this country's laws. If you choose to go to a foreign country, you have to abide by their laws. I don't see the problem. If you go to France in your car, it's easier if you drive on the same side of the road as them.

 

[Tranona]

If you are in this country (UK), you have to comply with this country's laws. If you choose to go to a foreign country, you have to abide by their laws. I don't see the problem. If you go to France in your car, it's easier if you drive on the same side of the road as them.

However, on this contentious issue you can go to France (and all other EU states) currently with marked diesel in your tanks as they do not enforce their law on visitors from the UK, because the issue is still in dispute through the court.

 

[jfm]

If you are in this country (UK), you have to comply with this country's laws. If you choose to go to a foreign country, you have to abide by their laws. I don't see the problem. If you go to France in your car, it's easier if you drive on the same side of the road as them.

You're 100% correct. But this is a completely different subject: this is about the creation (or not) of laws, not compliance with them One might expect that parliaments are free to pass whatever laws they choose, but in the EU there are overriding rules dictating to parliaments that they MUST pass certain laws whether they want to or not. That is how the EU works, and it is the alleged failure of UK parliament to pass laws that the EU has "ordered" it to pass that is at the centre of this dispute. It has nothing whatsoever to do with citizens following the law of the land.

 

[maby]

...

The action is all about how UK law stipulates the selling/carrying/usage or marked diesel, and isn't about the 60/40 thing per se.

Absolutely. My original point was that the UK government made the whole thing a lot more difficult to square with the commission by introducing the famous 60/40 split... The whole point of the diesel marking is to stop untaxed fuel being used for the propulsion of privately owned vehicles - including boats. When the UK was coming under pressure to ban the sale of red diesel to leisure sailors like us, the cry went up that to do so would effectively make boat ownership impossible for a lot of the UK because the only sources of fuel available within a reasonable travelling distance are commercial docks and harbours which only stock marked fuel. The UK government took up this cause and agreed to permit us to buy marked fuel provided we paid the tax on it.

In parallel, the motorboating lobby wanted to avoid as much of the associated tax hike as possible and pushed this concept of being able to declare a split and pay tax on less than 100% of the fuel purchased. This has been seriously abused by a lot of people - claiming 60/40 in the middle of the summer and trying to justify it on the grounds that some of the fuel burned goes to recharging the house battery bank or heat the contents of the calorifier.

The EU lives on compromises and I think there is a chance that we could have got them to turn a blind eye to the continued availability of red diesel to us if it were 100% taxed at the full rate on the grounds of the unique geography of the UK and the impact that the ban would have on the availability of fuel for many leisure sailors. But all other private boat owners in the EU have gritted their teeth and accepted that they have to pay full tax on all the fuel they buy - the much abused 60/40 split is exactly the sort of thing that the fuel marking directive is supposed to stop.

As I said before, I don't really care much one way or the other. Our fuel usage is low and we are south coast marina dwellers - if the EU do decide to enforce the ban, a number of marinas along the south coast will start stocking white diesel and we will carry on as before. The situation for sailors moored north of London may become a lot more difficult - I would not fancy filling up a large mobo with jerry cans brought from a local petrol station!

 

[NormanS]

Absolutely. My original point was that the UK government made the whole thing a lot more difficult to square with the commission by introducing the famous 60/40 split... The whole point of the diesel marking is to stop untaxed fuel being used for the propulsion of privately owned vehicles - including boats. When the UK was coming under pressure to ban the sale of red diesel to leisure sailors like us, the cry went up that to do so would effectively make boat ownership impossible for a lot of the UK because the only sources of fuel available within a reasonable travelling distance are commercial docks and harbours which only stock marked fuel. The UK government took up this cause and agreed to permit us to buy marked fuel provided we paid the tax on it.

In parallel, the motorboating lobby wanted to avoid as much of the associated tax hike as possible and pushed this concept of being able to declare a split and pay tax on less than 100% of the fuel purchased. This has been seriously abused by a lot of people - claiming 60/40 in the middle of the summer and trying to justify it on the grounds that some of the fuel burned goes to recharging the house battery bank or heat the contents of the calorifier.

The EU lives on compromises and I think there is a chance that we could have got them to turn a blind eye to the continued availability of red diesel to us if it were 100% taxed at the full rate on the grounds of the unique geography of the UK and the impact that the ban would have on the availability of fuel for many leisure sailors. But all other private boat owners in the EU have gritted their teeth and accepted that they have to pay full tax on all the fuel they buy - the much abused 60/40 split is exactly the sort of thing that the fuel marking directive is supposed to stop.

As I said before, I don't really care much one way or the other. Our fuel usage is low and we are south coast marina dwellers - if the EU do decide to enforce the ban, a number of marinas along the south coast will start stocking white diesel and we will carry on as before. The situation for sailors moored north of London may become a lot more difficult - I would not fancy filling up a large mobo with jerry cans brought from a local petrol station!

You may not have heard this, but it is fairly common knowledge that the UK is leaving the EU. I'm sure it is at least partly because Joe Public cannot see why we should have to comply with directives imposed on us by a foreign establishment.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why I have to pay Road Tax for fuel for my boat, but I could, if I had one, run about all day with my diesel quad bike, ride-on mower etc, entirely tax free?

 

[st599]

You may not have heard this, but it is fairly common knowledge that the UK is leaving the EU. I'm sure it is at least partly because Joe Public cannot see why we should have to comply with directives imposed on us by a foreign establishment.

Which country was the chair who proposed it from?

The Proposal seems to be from the second half of 1993. The chair is someone called "John Major".

 

[st599]

If you read the directive that the UK has been taken to court over (95/60/EC), it's obvious that the directive states that diesel to be sold under a specific tax regime must be marked, diesel sold under any other tax regime must not be marked, governments must ensure that the correct diesel is sold. The UK was given 10 years to fix this, they didn't bother.

Also looking at Parliamentary answers, it's obvious that the EU were prepared to allow a compromise (whereby only propulsion is taxed) provided the diesel was white and that there was some sort of documentary evidence over the percentage.

 

[MapisM]

I'm sure it is at least partly because Joe Public cannot see why we should have to comply with directives imposed on us by a foreign establishment.

Interesting statement indeed. Very true, and very sad.
Summarizes pretty well what I always thought about anti-EU movements - also outside the UK, btw.
In fact, Farage surely is neither the first nor the only astute politician exploiting such sentiment to pursue his/their own interests.

The thing is, Joe Public doesn't care a jot about whether a directive makes sense or not.
Aside from being in principle against anything labelled as a "directive", he just can't stand the fact that it's imposed by someone else - where "someone else" is an extremely flexible concept, that can mean anything from the other half in a couple, to the local Council, the Region, the Parliament, or - Heaven forbid - a governing body placed outside the border of Mr. Joe's Country.

I don't know what sort of changes will follow from the fact that the new generations (on average) seem less keen to follow this approach, but it would be interesting to see them.
I'm just afraid that it might take longer than some of us can reasonably expect to be around...
Better not holding our breath, and go boating as much as we can in the meantime! :encouragement:

 

[benjenbav]

What follows is not true.

There once was a country with a proud marine tradition that was getting on just fine with gin palace owners buying ever bigger and more expensive boats from Sunprinline that burned hundreds of litres of fuel to go from the Hamble to Cowes and back. The owners paid pennies for their fuel because it wasn’t taxed (much). It was the same stuff that commercial users used. It was marked so that they and the fishermen couldn’t use it in their beemers and transits, because that would be wrong.

Then the EU said: for you Tommy ze tax break is over. From now on the playing field is being, how you say, levelled?

So in comes a directive to stop the UK subsidising its marine industry.

The UK is required to bring this in to local law, OR ELSE.

But plucky HMRC isn’t going to take it lying down and introduces the partial exemption rules. It can’t say, ‘just make a nonsense 60/40 declaration’ when every mobo runs at 99/1 but a nod’s as good as a wink to a blind mule. Ain’t that so, Rodney?

Sure, there’s a lot of mumbo jumbo bloxy stuff about keeping receipts and honesty. But in essence the UK has been getting round the rules to try to keep the making, parking and fixing of leisure boats continue to be as near as dammit viable in UK.

The alternative is the upcoming away fixture at The Neu Camp or, if you prefer, going to the EU courts with a case that a subsidy for part of one country’s leisure industry should prevail over 27 countries which are agin it.

 

[MapisM]

There once was a country with a proud marine tradition

Was I wrong in my understanding that it should be called maritime?
Genuine question, mind.

 

[benjenbav]

Was I wrong in my understanding that it should be called maritime?
Genuine question, mind.

Peccavi, and not in the Napier sense.

I'd like to be able to say that it was a play on words, drawing an analogy between the modern leisure-boating industry and Nelson's navy.

In fact, my only excuse is that I wrote it on my phone straight after three days of manual labour, shifting furniture and then a 10 hour flight from Vancouver to London.

The rest's not bad, if I say it myself, tho'. :encouragement:

 

[oldgit]

You may not have heard this, but it is fairly common knowledge that the UK is leaving the EU.?

Perhaps not if the UDP take their bag of cash and run over the NI border , or if "I did not make her pregnant" Boris loses the plot again or the MP for Ashford is found to have had his fingers on either a keyboard or office staff and we get an election..... Oops

 

[MapisM]

In fact, my only excuse is that I wrote it on my phone straight after three days of manual labour, shifting furniture and then a 10 hour flight from Vancouver to London.

Well, on the positive side, that can be a very nice route indeed.
If you're flying during the night, on a port side window seat, and the sun plays balls (that's a lot of IFs, I know...), the northern lights view can be breathtaking!

 

[oldgit]

Well, on the positive side, that can be a very nice route indeed.
If you're flying during the night, on a port side window seat, and the sun plays balls (that's a lot of IFs, I know...), the northern lights view can be breathtaking!

Are those our home made historic "British" Northern lights or the foreign EEA Northern lights..think 50% of the population need to know