A
Anonymous
Guest
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's one thing to have well-intentioned posts in a forum such as YBW and quite another thing to have a document such as the one you refer to, which gives legal guidance, issued by an organisation with the stature of the Cruising Association, yet with no input from a lawyer.
[/ QUOTE ] First, that document does not give 'legal' guidance; it advises members on the known aspects of Spanish law as they apply to boat owners, and clearly states that it is a 'best endeavors' exercise. It further states that for further clarification members should ask for local legal advice.
It then goes on to give the best advice available.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you see that legal advice --- and that is exactly what this is, it isn't medical or navigational advice --- is worse than useless unless it cites the laws concerned and has been approved by a qualified lawyer. i.e. a document, ideally in Spanish with an English translation, setting out the situation. 'Best endeavours', when it comes to legal or medical advice, are best not done however well-meaning they are, or however accurate they turn out to be. Doctors give medical advice. Lawyers give legal advice. Both expect to be paid. Unfortunately, both doctors and lawyers can sometimes get it wrong....but there really is little else one can do.
[ QUOTE ]
Apart from those two minor matters, my quote from your text above is correct. Doesn't leave much, does it?
[/ QUOTE ] I don't understand what you are saying or meaning. If you mean that you consulted a Professor of Law and a marine specialist, then for that to be meaningful these people need to be named, and any relevant laws cited.
[ QUOTE ]
All your posts have been about unknowns. You want to know whether the EU provision for re-registration of boats belonging to non-residents, but which have been in Spain longer than 183 days, has been implemented. There is no evidence that it has been implemented. You say 'prove it'. You can't prove a negative . . . the absence of something . .
[/ QUOTE ]No, this isn't right at all. We have had reports that the authorities are hounding yachts owned by non-residents. The legal advice that I received from Del Prado Solicitors (and which I paid for, in full, by myself) stated that was legal and they cited the laws. If you ask a lawyer a specific question, which I did, he should come back with the answer and the relevant legal codes. He did. Within the last few days, Alex, a Gestor, has posted here in YBW but we have had extensive email correspondence and I have shared with him the full legal opinion of Del Prado. Alex believes that Del Prado are wrong, and he has given me the legal codes which I have read for myself. I suspect that Alex is correct but before we make assumptions we need to get an input from Del Prado and get them to agree that they were wrong (if, indeed, they are after all they are the qualified lawyers).
You need to remember, Jim, that should someone be approached for this tax -- say a UK resident with a valuable yacht in a Spanish harbour -- they will go to a local solicitor for advice. Had they gone to Del Prado last Spring their advice would have been that the tax was due --- with the implications of re-flagging.
[ QUOTE ]
You've raised red herring about a '30 day rule'. The only relevance of 30 days I've so far found is that this is the period of grace allowed for payment of taxes once the amount has been agreed.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the advice I received from my solicitors. It is legal advice from my solicitors, Jim, not a 'red herring'. Now you are rather sticking your neck out by saying that the lawyer is wrong and stating what you personally think is the situation. You might be right, but yours is a lay opinion that differs from professional legal opinion. Nevertheless, not many people are going to make important financial taxation decisions on the basis of what "Jim says or thinks" so that's pretty harmless. What is not harmless is a major yachting organisation such as the Cruising Association issuing a document explaining Spanish tax law without having it properly checked and approved by a lawyer. A professional Company Secretary would be hauled over red hot coals if he let such a thing go out on company headed paper or the online equivalent. Such documents need to be checked by the lawyers and allowed out under the control of the Company Secretary. That's the CS's job.
[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, criticising the only decent paper available on this subject on the grounds that it does not cover unknowns is quite illogical. Yachtsmen need advice, even if there is a risk that it not complete.
[/ QUOTE ]I completely and utterly disagree with you. Legal advice is dangerous unless it is properly checked by a lawyer. You or I, as individuals, are free to guess and gamble all we please but we have no right to publish what appears to be a serious legal briefing document knowing that it has not been formally signed off by (paid) lawyers. It is well-meaning but dangerous.
The present situation is that I have some very valuable information from Alex however I am presently in Budapest without some of my papers. I shall try to get it together in the next few days and invite Del Prado solicitors to comment. Alex has been extremely helpful and has been providing me with the relevant codes so this might not be as difficult as it has been hitherto.
When I get a reply I will discuss with Frank and others at the CA and we can try to find the best way forward; my present thinking is that we update the present document to include all legal citations and modify any text that needs altering....then I shall suggest to the CA that a firm of lawyers finally sign it off as correct. Maybe Del Prado would do that for us, or maybe the CA will have alternatives.
At least it does seem as though we are making some progress with thanks due to Grehan for introducing us to Alex, and Alex's kind efforts.
[ QUOTE ]
It's one thing to have well-intentioned posts in a forum such as YBW and quite another thing to have a document such as the one you refer to, which gives legal guidance, issued by an organisation with the stature of the Cruising Association, yet with no input from a lawyer.
[/ QUOTE ] First, that document does not give 'legal' guidance; it advises members on the known aspects of Spanish law as they apply to boat owners, and clearly states that it is a 'best endeavors' exercise. It further states that for further clarification members should ask for local legal advice.
It then goes on to give the best advice available.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you see that legal advice --- and that is exactly what this is, it isn't medical or navigational advice --- is worse than useless unless it cites the laws concerned and has been approved by a qualified lawyer. i.e. a document, ideally in Spanish with an English translation, setting out the situation. 'Best endeavours', when it comes to legal or medical advice, are best not done however well-meaning they are, or however accurate they turn out to be. Doctors give medical advice. Lawyers give legal advice. Both expect to be paid. Unfortunately, both doctors and lawyers can sometimes get it wrong....but there really is little else one can do.
[ QUOTE ]
Apart from those two minor matters, my quote from your text above is correct. Doesn't leave much, does it?
[/ QUOTE ] I don't understand what you are saying or meaning. If you mean that you consulted a Professor of Law and a marine specialist, then for that to be meaningful these people need to be named, and any relevant laws cited.
[ QUOTE ]
All your posts have been about unknowns. You want to know whether the EU provision for re-registration of boats belonging to non-residents, but which have been in Spain longer than 183 days, has been implemented. There is no evidence that it has been implemented. You say 'prove it'. You can't prove a negative . . . the absence of something . .
[/ QUOTE ]No, this isn't right at all. We have had reports that the authorities are hounding yachts owned by non-residents. The legal advice that I received from Del Prado Solicitors (and which I paid for, in full, by myself) stated that was legal and they cited the laws. If you ask a lawyer a specific question, which I did, he should come back with the answer and the relevant legal codes. He did. Within the last few days, Alex, a Gestor, has posted here in YBW but we have had extensive email correspondence and I have shared with him the full legal opinion of Del Prado. Alex believes that Del Prado are wrong, and he has given me the legal codes which I have read for myself. I suspect that Alex is correct but before we make assumptions we need to get an input from Del Prado and get them to agree that they were wrong (if, indeed, they are after all they are the qualified lawyers).
You need to remember, Jim, that should someone be approached for this tax -- say a UK resident with a valuable yacht in a Spanish harbour -- they will go to a local solicitor for advice. Had they gone to Del Prado last Spring their advice would have been that the tax was due --- with the implications of re-flagging.
[ QUOTE ]
You've raised red herring about a '30 day rule'. The only relevance of 30 days I've so far found is that this is the period of grace allowed for payment of taxes once the amount has been agreed.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the advice I received from my solicitors. It is legal advice from my solicitors, Jim, not a 'red herring'. Now you are rather sticking your neck out by saying that the lawyer is wrong and stating what you personally think is the situation. You might be right, but yours is a lay opinion that differs from professional legal opinion. Nevertheless, not many people are going to make important financial taxation decisions on the basis of what "Jim says or thinks" so that's pretty harmless. What is not harmless is a major yachting organisation such as the Cruising Association issuing a document explaining Spanish tax law without having it properly checked and approved by a lawyer. A professional Company Secretary would be hauled over red hot coals if he let such a thing go out on company headed paper or the online equivalent. Such documents need to be checked by the lawyers and allowed out under the control of the Company Secretary. That's the CS's job.
[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, criticising the only decent paper available on this subject on the grounds that it does not cover unknowns is quite illogical. Yachtsmen need advice, even if there is a risk that it not complete.
[/ QUOTE ]I completely and utterly disagree with you. Legal advice is dangerous unless it is properly checked by a lawyer. You or I, as individuals, are free to guess and gamble all we please but we have no right to publish what appears to be a serious legal briefing document knowing that it has not been formally signed off by (paid) lawyers. It is well-meaning but dangerous.
The present situation is that I have some very valuable information from Alex however I am presently in Budapest without some of my papers. I shall try to get it together in the next few days and invite Del Prado solicitors to comment. Alex has been extremely helpful and has been providing me with the relevant codes so this might not be as difficult as it has been hitherto.
When I get a reply I will discuss with Frank and others at the CA and we can try to find the best way forward; my present thinking is that we update the present document to include all legal citations and modify any text that needs altering....then I shall suggest to the CA that a firm of lawyers finally sign it off as correct. Maybe Del Prado would do that for us, or maybe the CA will have alternatives.
At least it does seem as though we are making some progress with thanks due to Grehan for introducing us to Alex, and Alex's kind efforts.
