Red Diesel

[maby]

60/40 is HMRC's suggestion and the split scheme. Doesn't sound like avoidance or evasion to me. If it was why aren't there strings of peoploe lined up to be prosecuted? After all, our name and address is on every blooming declaration. QED.

BUT... 60/40 was never an instruction from HMRC - the instruction was to claim at the actual split you expected to use. 60/40 was the figure which HMRC let it be known they would not ask too many questions. I've bought tanks full of fuel claiming 100% rebate in the depths of winter and zero rebate in the height of summer.

For almost all leisure boat owners, 60/40 is exceedingly generous. We've just spent a winter living almost full-time in the marina - most of the time there were about half a dozen boats occupied out of several hundred. Most of the mobos have not seen their owners in the last five months - but they will be back in late March, filling their tanks and claiming 60/40 - there is no way that they will be using 40% of the fuel for heating - and they are on shore power, so they are not using it for generation either - it is simply tax evasion.

Not that I have any problem with tax evasion of any kind - I'm all for it. But when you indulge in a bit of tax evasion, you need to remember that it will not last for ever - think yourself lucky for whatever you get away with but don't complain when it gets blocked off.

 

[gjgm]

BUT... 60/40 was never an instruction from HMRC - the instruction was to claim at the actual split you expected to use. 60/40 was the figure which HMRC let it be known they would not ask too many questions. I've bought tanks full of fuel claiming 100% rebate in the depths of winter and zero rebate in the height of summer.

For almost all leisure boat owners, 60/40 is exceedingly generous. We've just spent a winter living almost full-time in the marina - most of the time there were about half a dozen boats occupied out of several hundred. Most of the mobos have not seen their owners in the last five months - but they will be back in late March, filling their tanks and claiming 60/40 - there is no way that they will be using 40% of the fuel for heating - and they are on shore power, so they are not using it for generation either - it is simply tax evasion.

Not that I have any problem with tax evasion of any kind - I'm all for it. But when you indulge in a bit of tax evasion, you need to remember that it will not last for ever - think yourself lucky for whatever you get away with but don't complain when it gets blocked off.

And if you had to pay propulsion level of tax for your heating fuel, would you then not be able to take them to court,or at least require a refund for overpayment?
60/40 might not be generous in terms on net receipts against the costs of counter claims.

 

[maby]

And if you had to pay propulsion level of tax for your heating fuel, would you then not be able to take them to court,or at least require a refund for overpayment?
60/40 might not be generous in terms on net receipts against the costs of counter claims.

I don't think there is any question of that - the HMRC (and commission) answer would be that you are perfectly welcome to continue using reduced tax red diesel for heating provided you install a second tank for it and there is no possibility of rerouting the fuel in that tank through to the engine. That is perfectly legal and will continue to be so - even in Belgium. The start, and end, of the problem is the presence of marked, tax reduced fuel in a tank that is connected to the engine. The commission objects that this is open to abuse and tax evasion - a belief that is fully supported when someone here claims that the loss of the 60/40 split will add £500 or more to their annual running costs!

The current situation is no different to you expecting to be able to order 500 gallons of red diesel to be delivered into your domestic heating tank and expect to be allowed to put some of it into your car provided you pay full tax on the percentage you expect to put in the car - try asking them to allow you to do that!

 

[sailorman]

I don't think there is any question of that - the HMRC (and commission) answer would be that you are perfectly welcome to continue using reduced tax red diesel for heating provided you install a second tank for it and there is no possibility of rerouting the fuel in that tank through to the engine. That is perfectly legal and will continue to be so - even in Belgium. The start, and end, of the problem is the presence of marked, tax reduced fuel in a tank that is connected to the engine. The commission objects that this is open to abuse and tax evasion - a belief that is fully supported when someone here claims that the loss of the 60/40 split will add £500 or more to their annual running costs!

The current situation is no different to you expecting to be able to order 500 gallons of red diesel to be delivered into your domestic heating tank and expect to be allowed to put some of it into your car provided you pay full tax on the percentage you expect to put in the car - try asking them to allow you to do that!

some years ago when we were on a our swinging mooring 1 or 2 farmers owned MoBos. (this was before the 60/40)
they would take said boats alongside the quay to their own bowser brought from the farm.
Now who / how do you think paid the tax on that. Us That IS tax Evasion

 

[gjgm]

I don't think there is any question of that

It was certainly doing the rounds as one of the reasons for this solution.. incorrectly/correctly, officially/unofficially.. I dont know.....

 

[joliette]

BUT... 60/40 was never an instruction from HMRC - the instruction was to claim at the actual split you expected to use. 60/40 was the figure which HMRC let it be known they would not ask too many questions. I've bought tanks full of fuel claiming 100% rebate in the depths of winter and zero rebate in the height of summer.

For almost all leisure boat owners, 60/40 is exceedingly generous. We've just spent a winter living almost full-time in the marina - most of the time there were about half a dozen boats occupied out of several hundred. Most of the mobos have not seen their owners in the last five months - but they will be back in late March, filling their tanks and claiming 60/40 - there is no way that they will be using 40% of the fuel for heating - and they are on shore power, so they are not using it for generation either - it is simply tax evasion.

Not that I have any problem with tax evasion of any kind - I'm all for it. But when you indulge in a bit of tax evasion, you need to remember that it will not last for ever - think yourself lucky for whatever you get away with but don't complain when it gets blocked off.

Yes, exactly ... and I'm all for a bit of tax avoidance (which is legal) vs tax evasion (which is illegal), just to clarify the terminology. I believe you are correct in that the current 60/40 position on red diesel for private pleasure craft - wherever that came from, RYA / HMRC / whoever - allows for the possibility of wide spread tax evasion. And, it would not suprise me, particularly in the current economic climate and with the rise of the green agenda, if the current political thrust from the EU on UK marked fuel was not seized by HMRC as an opportunity to eliminate any future evasion ...?

 

[PaulGooch]

After 09870978098 threads and 0980394875043987509348 posts, i see Maby still doesn't get it. Or perhaps he does, but just likes posting about red diesel.

The current issue has NOTHING to do with the 60/40 split, NOTHING to do with the level of duty. It is solely about the use of marked fuel, NOTHING else. If we switched to white, with the 60/40 split, the Belgians would be happy (well, maybe not happy, i'm sure they'd find something else to whine about).

Their current winge is that our use of red makes it difficult for them to identify illegal fuel that has not had duty paid on it. For instance, a Belgian boat that visited the UK could use tractor diesel and claim that it was legally purchased UK red.

 

[maby]

After 09870978098 threads and 0980394875043987509348 posts, i see Maby still doesn't get it. Or perhaps he does, but just likes posting about red diesel.

The current issue has NOTHING to do with the 60/40 split, NOTHING to do with the level of duty. It is solely about the use of marked fuel, NOTHING else. If we switched to white, with the 60/40 split, the Belgians would be happy (well, maybe not happy, i'm sure they'd find something else to whine about).

Their current winge is that our use of red makes it difficult for them to identify illegal fuel that has not had duty paid on it. For instance, a Belgian boat that visited the UK could use tractor diesel and claim that it was legally purchased UK red.

I do get it - and there are multiple issues in play here. The Belgians are the immediate, practical issue since they are the only ones that have taken action against us thus far. The EU Commission is the underlying, and more serious issue which is currently being eclipsed by the Belgian one.

As someone pointed out very forcefully several days ago, EU Directives apply to countries, not individuals. Each country is required to enact laws that put those directives into force locally. We (as individuals) cannot be penalised for failing to comply with directives, we can be penalised for failing to comply with the laws deriving from those directives. The Belgians are fining us for the presence of marked fuel in our tanks because their laws - enacted to enforce the various directives on fuel duty and marking - forbid the sale of marked fuel to private individuals. Belgium is not at liberty to say to HMRC "you must stop letting them have red diesel" - they can only say to us "you cannot bring it here".

There is a separate case before the commission who are considering if the sale of red diesel should be banned altogether in this country to private users. It seems likely that that case will be lost and we will be forced to switch to white, or stop sailing.

You are quite correct when you say that the Belgians are not complaining about the 60/40 split. But the commission are unhappy about it. If it had never been offered, it may have been a lot easier to convince them that we should be allowed to continue buying red diesel while paying full tax. The fact that so many owners of mobos are so exercised at the prospect of losing 60/40 is just ammunition for those that believe we should be banned from using red.

 

[gjgm]

It may be easier just not to go to Belgium. If no one is going to fine me where I am going, I dont really care....
Do you drive at more than 70?
Do you put the right rubbish in the right bin?
Do you ever walk on the grass?
What would really make me angry is if we lose 60/40/red over people making a fuss over this latest move from HMRC.

 

[ian38_39]

It may be easier just not to go to Belgium. If no one is going to fine me where I am going, I dont really care....
Do you drive at more than 70?
Do you put the right rubbish in the right bin?
Do you ever walk on the grass?
What would really make me angry is if we lose 60/40/red over people making a fuss over this latest move from HMRC.

Sort of an I don't go so I don't care attitude is what you are advocating then?

Added to that the fact that no one should be campaigning for the greater cause as it could interfere with the supply of red for those that don't care.

 

[maby]

Sort of an I don't go so I don't care attitude is what you are advocating then?

Added to that the fact that no one should be campaigning for the greater cause as it could interfere with the supply of red for those that don't care.

+1

 

[gjgm]

Sort of an I don't go so I don't care attitude is what you are advocating then?

Added to that the fact that no one should be campaigning for the greater cause as it could interfere with the supply of red for those that don't care.

Please clarify..
-What is " the greater cause"?. Sounds semi religious.

 

[ian38_39]

The protection of free passage around Europe for UK based boats. Well at least that would be my view on it.

 

[maby]

The protection of free passage around Europe for UK based boats. Well at least that would be my view on it.

+1

 

[Piers]

Just been talking with the RYA. Was told by the legal dept that if you've bought red from the outside the EU, you would not be charged tax on entering the EU.

Specifically, if you can prove you've bought red from the Channel Islands, that will be fine.

The issue is buying red diesel from within the EU.

 

[Latestarter1]

It may be easier just not to go to Belgium. If no one is going to fine me where I am going, I dont really care....
Do you drive at more than 70?
Do you put the right rubbish in the right bin?
Do you ever walk on the grass?
What would really make me angry is if we lose 60/40/red over people making a fuss over this latest move from HMRC.

A voice of reason.............

The 60/40 solution was to allow pleasure boaters access to fuel outlets which blanket adoption of EU harmonisation would be closed to us. Simple logic is that the distribution industry reliant on commercial users using large volumes of fuel thoughout the year. Leasure boaters are merely a wart on the backside of this buisiness.

Loss of access to commercial fuel distribution will hurt us all.

As I said at the very beginning, bunch of turkeys voting for Christmas.

Just as bad as the protesters outside St Pauls, no clear agenda, what exactly do you guys WANT?

US Military jargon is AOS...........All Options Stink.

 

[gjgm]

The protection of free passage around Europe for UK based boats. Well at least that would be my view on it.

Is that the greater cause? I would think it might be the protection of the UK marine leisure market. Already marinas are emptying, people giving up left right and centre. So far the only real issue is Belgium. Maybe the greater cause is 10,000 boaters using red around Uk, not a handful of boaters who want to go to Belgium, or are more concerned about a tidy legal outcome, even if it decimates what's left of the hobby.
I would rather have a messy solution if that means folk can enjoy their chosen passtime, even if it is a fudge.
If I understand you, what matters more is a legal free passage, and damn who is driven out.
Personally, I could afford it, but I would like to see others able to continue too.
I dont think it is me with the "I dont care" attitude, unless you mean that I dont care if it is a fudge.
Too right, I dont.

 

[oldgit]

" Already marinas are emptying, people giving up left right and centre. "


Marinas are emptying mainly due to the horrid real world finally seeping into the La La land of boating.
Terminally addicted to cheap credit and cheap fuel,the boating world is being forced into to a more realistic level of activity at every level.

 

[yesod]

Terminally addicted to cheap credit and cheap fuel,the boating world is being forced into to a more realistic level of activity at every level.

careful there, your chips are showing...

 

[ian38_39]

Free passage is a right enjoyed by UK boat owners far longer than red diesel.

If there was no move afoot by our own HMRC to clarify the matter with a signed declaration of intent to act unlawfully then I would be tempted to agree with the "Don't go to Belgium then line".

Unfortunately that is not the case and once signed, in my view anyway, the rest of the EU will find the temptation to fine UK boats far too much.

From there white will become the norm for UK coastal boats and even if the UK continues to allow the use of red, when it comes to sale time you would be selling a sea boat that can't go anywhere. Boats run on white will be more desirable and hence worth more.

Regardless of actual use, buying a boat or trading up are often accompanied by thoughts of foreign travel, even if the prospective purchaser knows he will not be going, he will also know that the person he intends to sell to when the time comes may not.

If this does go through it will be the end of red for coastal boats, maybe not on April1st but it won't be far behind.