Jump to content

eco-boat

Member
  • Posts

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

eco-boat last won the day on December 26 2014

eco-boat had the most liked content!

About eco-boat

  • Birthday 23/12/1962

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    jmarkwalker

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Princes Risborough
  • Occupation
    Biogas CHP products

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

eco-boat's Achievements

Engager

Engager (3/12)

3

Reputation

  1. Absolutely! My boat and my business will be kept worlds apart. If HMRC sees any association between the two, the whole boat becomes liable for 20% VAT. I'm keeping every single receipt, for future scrutiny.
  2. This is correct. I have been doing VAT returns for my business every three months for the past 12 years. On the sale side of the form, you enter a sale value and you enter the VAT you charged. For most businesses the VAT value is always 20% of the sale value, but when it isn't, alarm bells start ringing at HMRC. Boat builders who build live-aboard widebeams are an example of where the VAT value is significantly less than 20% of the sale value. HMRC sees this and investigates. My boat builder has experienced this a lot in the past, and as I have said previously, has even gone to court to fight HMRC and won. HMRC write the rules, the boat builder conforms to the rules, I pay zero VAT. It's that simple. Mark
  3. I bought the boat with 0% VAT. There's nothing in the contract to say that VAT liabilities are transferred to me the buyer, and the boat builder is confident that VAT will not be demanded by HMRC. ark
  4. I think we can say that the terms VAT and luxury should not be associated. My mistake. Sorry.
  5. My interpretation (which is clearly wrong) of what HMRC consider as non-luxury items was:- If you don't have the item for a significant amount of time, you will stop breathing (e.g. food, shelter, healthcare), but here's a list of non-luxury (0% VAT) items (in HMRC's point of view) :- Antiques, works of art or similar, when sold to public institutions Burial or cremation (human) Commercial land & buildings (selling/leasing/letting) Cultural events operated by public bodies (museums, art exhibitions, zoos & performances) Education, vocational training Financial services (money transactions, loans/credits, savings/deposits, shares/bonds) Funeral plan insurance Gambling (betting, gaming, bingo, lottery) Health services (doctors, dentists, opticians, pharmacists & other health professionals) Insurance Medical treatment & care Membership subscriptions Postage stamps Sports activities & physical education TV licence A couple of these items make sense but most of them are just outright bonkers, ludicrous, bizarre!
  6. Thank you for your comments guys. My boat is zero VAT rated. HMRC have a formula that gives you a gross weight figure. It doesn't make sense to me but who am I to question HMRC. The result of the calculation needs to be greater than 15 tons for HMRC to class the vessel as a ship. The boat builder is the one who is responsible to HMRC for VAT charges. The disaster stories on the internet are about those contracts where the boat builder put in a clause that made the buyer responsible if HMRC questions it. These stories have made the buyers more careful and made the boat builders more responsible - I don't believe any boat builders are attempting to put that clause in these days. My boat builder (as is the case with many) fully understand the rules defined by HMRC. My boat builder has been to court twice to fight HMRC (I wouldn't fancy my chance in that kind of battle) and on both occasions they won. So they understand the details of the law and of HMRC's attitude to it. VAT is supposed to be for luxury items (remember the debate about Jaffa cakes being biscuits or cakes). This means that live-aboards should be exempt from VAT (all of them). HMRC are bending/breaking the rules when they apply VAT to live-aboards but their argument is that smaller vessels are easier to convert into pleasure vessels (thus qualifying for VAT). It's a weak argument but they are difficult to fight. HMRC have recently introduced a change to their rules on zero rated live-aboards and that is the 9' beam or less does not achieve VAT exemption. My boat builder intended to challenge this and go for a third court case victory but the barrister costs were so high that the boat builder just had to let it go. My original question was answered by myself. I found a clause on the HMRC website that said zero rated equipment, materials and services could qualify for zero VAT but only if they were a part of the same contract as the boat build. So unfortunately for me, all my additional purchase for my sailaway fit-out needs to be purchased through my boat builder. Following up on someone else's comment....... You can reclaim VAT when you're not VAT registered. If you live on land and want to buy some renewable energy components for your house, they are 5% VAT rated. You buy your solar PV, heat pump or whatever at 20% VAT then you contact HMRC and show them your receipts. They reimburse you with 15%. One of my customers is doing this as we speak. Personal Update My blog is now quite old (5 years I believe) and much of my intentions and many of my views have changed as I have learned more about the boating world. I will resume writing on the blog very soon because my fit-out will start in the next few weeks. I have been planning to buy a boat from Colecraft for 6 years. Last week, after having a build slot booked for 12 months and them having a significant deposit for 6 months and days away from steel cutting, they told me that they didn't want to build a boat for me, they don't have the time, and I should take my deposit back. I understand why they did this - they are traditionalists and I am a long way from that, so to them I am a 'difficult customer'. It did shatter my dreams though. Next day I picked up the pieces and bought myself a new, already built, sailaway by Collingwood. I had to make a few compromises and I'll be doing alterations for months to come but it will get me on the water sooner. Mark
  7. I think I've found the answer. This paragraph is in notice 744 4.3 What’s treated as part of a supply of a ship or aircraft Normal fixed and loose equipment and furnishings necessary for the operation, navigation or safety, are treated as part of the supply of a ship or aircraft if supplied with it under the same contract. An initial normal complement of on-board spares is treated in the same way. If I try claim back VAT on my own purchases, if won't be the 'same contract', so I must go through my boat builder. Mark
  8. My boat does qualify for zero VAT. My question is whether I can purchase fit-out materials myself and claim the VAT back myself, or must I go through the boat builder. Regards, Mark
  9. I'm not sure this topic is in the right place but I'll move it if not. I've just purchased a new sailaway liveaboard boat. It is zero rated for VAT. I am now constructing a list of items that I can ask my boat builder to buy and include in the sale. If I do this, I can get theses items also zero rated for VAT (if they qualify, i.e. no white goods). This shopping list is getting very long and I'm expecting my boat builder to eventually say 'no' to some or all of it. Does anyone have any experience of dealing with HMRC on the topic of VAT zero rating for liveaboards? Would it be possible for me to purchase these items and then claim the VAT back from HMRC myself? Mark
  10. Burning wood certainly isn't a perfect environmental fuel, but none are, and the discussion is about comparing it with diesel. It does beat diesel from an environmental POV. The fact of the matter is that once a tree has grown, the carbon within it is destined to end up in the atmosphere by one way or another, so it may as well be used to displace fossil fuel in your boat. Picking up dead branches from the canal side has got to be an environmentally better fuel than diesel.
  11. What 'tripe' are you referring to? Or was that just a general insult?
  12. Fossil fuels have been deposited by photosynthesising plants over hundreds of millions of years. We're digging these stores up and burning them in a few decades. That's bad. Wood starts it's life by by growing through the absorption of CO2. When you burn it, you only giving off what the wood has recently absorbed. This is carbon neutral, and is many orders of magnitude better than releasing fossil fuel carbon.
  13. Running a diesel engine to charge your batteries is not a great thing, but it's no worse than using diesel for propulsion. The advantage of an electric drive is that it gives the possibility of getting free electricity from solar pv, and of course you can also charge them from land electricity, which is what the Dutch do.
  14. I think it is not a balanced case to rule out one technology because of its manufacturing cost. If you want to do that and be fair, you need to do it for everything (which we probably should do). Everything from cement to steel to diesel engines to TVs has an environmental cost. Your average smartphone contains a dozen rare elements and we're close to running out of most of them. It may be a case of 'burying one's head in the sand' over manufacturing but to be able to travel the UK canal network using no fossil fuels has got to be considered a good thing. I can do that with my boat. I just need the diesel engine to get me upstream on a river. The electric drive isn't capable of that. Mark
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.