Red Diesel The Law?

[davidpetertucker]

The wording prescribed by HMR&C for this declaration is:-

"I declare that [ ]% of the fuel purchased will be used for propelling a private pleasure craft"
and the declarant will be asked to pay the full rate of duty on the declared proportion of the fuel purchased.

I think it is important to note that the law requires higher duty to be paid on the fuel used for propulsion. This is not the same as the fuel consumed by the engine. Only about 25% of the fuel can strictly be defined as producing actual propulsion, the rest is wasted as heat and noise, the generation of electricity etc. If the law required that higher duty be paid on all the fuel that was consumed by the engine then that is what it would say. It is not our duty to interpret what our rulers may or may not have had in mind, but only to obey the exact letter of the law.

 

[jofb]

I also wonder why there are not two agreed notional splits between use for propulsion and domestic needs - one for motorboats and one for sailing vessels.
The splits must be significantly different, assuming that the sailors are making proper use of their free propulsive force, of course!

 

[Sandyman]

[ QUOTE ]
I also wonder why there are not two agreed notional splits between use for propulsion and domestic needs - one for motorboats and one for sailing vessels.
The splits must be significantly different, assuming that the sailors are making proper use of their free propulsive force, of course!

[/ QUOTE ]

Liveaboards. !!!!!
Last week I topped up & claimed 10% for propulsion. 90% for domestic use.
Did I sail up from the West Country to Poole or did I motor against the Easterly winds ??? Did I have any choice other than not to make the passage ?? Did I use any of the fuel from the lower duty paid fuel ??
I shall carry on claiming this split until the nasty man from Customs comes after me.

 

[Nickcf]

[ QUOTE ]
I also wonder why there are not two agreed notional splits between use for propulsion and domestic needs - one for motorboats and one for sailing vessels.
The splits must be significantly different, assuming that the sailors are making proper use of their free propulsive force, of course!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would it be different..? If you are sailing you are not using fuel. If you are using the engine, you are. This is nothing to do with how much fuel you use (or don't) covering a specific distance. The split is a ratio (60:40) not an allowance or specific amount. Hence it doesn't matter if it is a sailing boat or a mobo. The only issue is what % of your fuel that you are using is for propulsion as against domestic. In theory this is down to efficiency of the engine (the waste heat arguement applies if used for heating water etc) and other use for generators, heating, alternators, battery charging etc).
It would be virtually impossible to calculate a specific ratio for every type of boat (given the type of engine setup) and it would probably change depending on external temperature, type of cruising etc. Hence the 'agreed average' 60:40 ratio. For once a very sensible, pragmatic approach by a gov dept! If the 60:40 is not correct for the type of boat you have you can opt to claim any % from 0-100% so long as you can justify it!

 

[davidpetertucker]

(the waste heat arguement applies if used for heating water etc

I don't agree. There is no requirement that fuel not used for actual propultion is not taxable. Thus you would be perfectly within yor rights to claim exemption for 75% of the fuel consumed by the engine and 100% of the fule used for heating etc.

The thing to do is not to make too much fuss about it (for fear that the gov will tighten up the wording) but have the argument ready should you be challanged by some scientificaly illiterate revenue man.

 

[rubberduck]

If the nice man from the revenue comes to see me, I will tell him I only use the boat as somewhere to bring the girlfriend so the wife does'nt find out, hence only use fuel for warming her up. love to see them get out of that one /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[duncanmack]

Having had some recent experience of HMRC's modus operandum I'd bet that they would check with both your girlfriend and your wife.
Remember that they'd get more tax "take" from the lawyer's fees from the divorce, and the stamp duty.
Look on the bright side. You'd owe her less now that the price of houses and boats has dropped...
And if you have a pension she'd be getting less than before...

Always try and look at the positive side of things!

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[Alicatt]

We claimed the VAT back on the food for our dog, the inspector looked at our plump-ish black Labrador and laughed "that's no working dog, claim denied."

Next morning when he returned to continue the checking of the books, my mother was sitting in the reception and the dog was laying on the half landing, the tax inspector opened the door, mum issued the command and the 7 stone black missile launched herself from the stairs and pinned the inspector against the wall, she never harmed a hair but boy did the inspector get a fright.

Oh we got the tax back from the dog food, 5years worth too