Ownership of Bill of Sale

[Alan de Enfield]

53 minutes ago, Peanut said:

Interesting, does the broker even own the boat?  While you may rely on their professional service, you may be buying the boat from the owner who is not a business and claims to know nothing.  The brokers will say that they rely on what the owner told them, and could prove a slippery fish.

 

If the broker owns the boat they are legally required to declare that they are selling the boat 'in the course of a business', if they are acting as a broker on behalf of the owner they are under no legal obligation to tell you the faults on the boat, or even tell you anything about it.

If you ask "are there any problems with this boat ?" they do not need answer but, if you ask a direct question such as , "is the vat paid on this boat", or "is this boat RCD compliant" then they must answer truthfully to the best of their knowledge.

 

The owner is under no obligation to tell you anything, or mention any problems with the boat.

 

It really is a case of Caveat Emptor.

[MtB]

3 hours ago, Dave J said:

Apparently (according to the broker) the bill of sale states the same...I'm still waiting to see it!!

 

Here, I think we may be getting closer to the real reason for them withholding it. I bet either they don't actually have it in the first place to show you and they don't want to admit it, or there is something on it they don't want you to see. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Dave J said:

Apparently (according to the broker) the bill of sale states the same...I'm still waiting to see it!!

 

Here, I think we may be getting closer to the real reason for them withholding it. I bet either they don't actually have it in the first place to show you and they don't want to admit it, or there is something on it they don't want you to see. 

 

 

 

[MtB]

3 hours ago, Dave J said:

Apparently (according to the broker) the bill of sale states the same...I'm still waiting to see it!!

 

Here, I think we may be getting closer to the real reason for them withholding it. I bet either they don't actually have it in the first place to show you and they don't want to admit it, or there is something on it they don't want you to see. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Peanut said:

Interesting, does the broker even own the boat?  

 

Well one would hope not. A broker is a 'mouthpiece' for the owner and as such, should be able to identifier the owner to you as it is the owner with whom you are contracting to buy, I would have thought.

 

If the broker is actually the owner then they should be telling you.

 

Is the 'broker' whilton by any chance? They have a reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth on matters of who the real seller is. 

[mrsmelly]

A bit like houses, there are plenty of boats out there. Tell them to to put this boat were the monkey puts its nuts. There will be another somewhere that will do the job, with less hassle.

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

A bit like houses, there are plenty of boats out there. Tell them to to put this boat were the monkey puts its nuts. There will be another somewhere that will do the job, with less hassle.

 

 

Yes and brokers are behaving more thsn ever like estate agents. Manipulative snakes not to be trusted an inch.

[john.k]

The question in case of a liability to pay tax accepted by the first owner ,is ,can that liability be passed on to a second or  subsequent owner?.....The tax law places the liability with the builder,who then by contractual agreement is indemnified by the  buyer.......This liability cannot be passed to second or subsequent owner ,unless a further agreement is entered into......Might be more informative to discover if tax law has a mechanism to recover the tax in a  case where the builder no longer exists,in other words,a lien or right of seizure. against the boat?

[blackrose]

8 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

Yes and brokers are behaving more thsn ever like estate agents. Manipulative snakes not to be trusted an inch.

 

The broker could have manipulative ulterior motives for wanting to hold onto the original document. Or the reason could be much simpler. Perhaps the OP just happens to be dealing with an officious idiot who thinks they know the correct procedures and is stubbornly making up their own "rules". In my experience there are plenty of individuals like that in all walks of life. 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, john.k said:

The question in case of a liability to pay tax accepted by the first owner ,is ,can that liability be passed on to a second or  subsequent owner?.....The tax law places the liability with the builder,who then by contractual agreement is indemnified by the  buyer.......This liability cannot be passed to second or subsequent owner ,unless a further agreement is entered into......Might be more informative to discover if tax law has a mechanism to recover the tax in a  case where the builder no longer exists,in other words,a lien or right of seizure. against the boat?

 

I have had enough run-ins with HMRCE over the years and I'd hate to try and speculate on the liability of 'second-owners' on a non-VAT paid boat.

In the UK that VAT-Man (HMRCE) have huge powers - they even have powers that can exceed those of the Police, when it comes to 'entry and search' and arrest.

 

It would appear that if the boat is over 20 years old anyone SHOULD not be liable for VAT anyway.

 

In a VAT investigation, HMRC can now go back 20 years to recover VAT lost due to criminal or civil VAT fraud. HMRC have powers to arrest, without a warrant, anyone suspected of criminal VAT fraud or using false documents (Value Added Tax Act 1994 S.72 (9)).

[john.k]

My experience of brokers says they do not want you to know who the owner is..........because you will get your heads together and cut out the brokers comission.

[jonathanA]

2 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

The broker could have manipulative ulterior motives for wanting to hold onto the original document. Or the reason could be much simpler. Perhaps the OP just happens to be dealing with an officious idiot who thinks they know the correct procedures and is stubbornly making up their own "rules". In my experience there are plenty of individuals like that in all walks of life. 

I think your right, this is much more likely than complex tax evasion conspiracies.

 

It would seem perfectly reasonable for the broker to keep copies of any documents as they see fit.  Totally illogical for them to refuse to give you the originals. And no reason why they should not want you to speak to the owners. (Although maybe the owners don't want to get involved having engaged brokers)

[MichaelG]

So presuming the broker is selling on behalf of a vendor they own neither the boat or the paperwork relating to it. How then can they say they are going to retain property that does not belong to them.

[Ronaldo47]

Legally-recognised certified copies of original documents can be made by a notary public or a solicitor. There is a legally-prescribed fee for this. But they would need to see the original. 

[Dave J]

3 hours ago, MichaelG said:

So presuming the broker is selling on behalf of a vendor they own neither the boat or the paperwork relating to it. How then can they say they are going to retain property that does not belong to them.

I have no idea - it does sound plain wrong and i’ve made it known i won’t proceed on that basis!

[Bod]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I have had enough run-ins with HMRCE over the years and I'd hate to try and speculate on the liability of 'second-owners' on a non-VAT paid boat.

In the UK that VAT-Man (HMRCE) have huge powers - they even have powers that can exceed those of the Police, when it comes to 'entry and search' and arrest.

 

It would appear that if the boat is over 20 years old anyone SHOULD not be liable for VAT anyway.

 

In a VAT investigation, HMRC can now go back 20 years to recover VAT lost due to criminal or civil VAT fraud. HMRC have powers to arrest, without a warrant, anyone suspected of criminal VAT fraud or using false documents (Value Added Tax Act 1994 S.72 (9)).

This why VAT. was given to HM Custom and Execise, not Inland Revenue.  As Alan says HM Custom & Execise have more powers than the Police.  Now that Custom and Revenue have been merged into HMRC. Her Majesty's Revenue & Custom the powers are at their greatest, no search warrent needed, greater powers of arrest than the police, it's best not to mess with them.

 

Bod.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Bod
spelling

[David Mack]

48 minutes ago, Bod said:

This why VAT. was given to HM Custom and Execise, not Inland Revenue.  As Alan says HM Custom & Execise have more powers than the Police.  Now that Custom and Revenue have been merged into HMRC. Her Majesty's Revenue & Custom the powers are at their greatest, no search warrent needed, greater powers of arrest than the police, it's best not to mess with them.

 

Bod.

But even if you buy a boat on which VAT should have been paid and wasn't you won't have to deal with HMRC. The legal duty to collect and pay over the VAT rests with the boatbuilder, and that is who HMRC will go after. If you have signed a contract which says you will reimburse the boatbuilder for any VAT liability later found, that is a civil debt which the boatbuilder would have to pursue against you separately. And has been suggested above, the reasonableness of that contractual liability could very well be called into question.

Edited July 8, 2022 by David Mack

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

But even if you buy a boat on which VAT should have been paid and wasn't you won't have to deal with HMRC. The legal duty to collect and pay over the VAT rests with the boatbuilder, and that is who HMRC will go after. If you have signed a contract which says you will reimburse the boatbuilder for any VAT liability later found, that is a civil debt which the boatbuilder would have to pursue against you separately. And has been suggested above, the reasonableness of that contractual liability could very well be called into question.

 

But that is not what has happened in a number of cases.

The builders T&Cs were found to be applicable and enforceable, and the buyer of the boat had to find £20,000+ many many months after buying the boat when the builder had his VAT audit and it was found he had not charged the standard rate of VAT as he should have done for those boats.

His T&Cs stated that if it was ever found to be subject to VAT at the standard rate then the boat owner would be liable, and that is what the HMRCE followed up on.

 

You can argue all you want that "the builder should pay it and that it is a civil debt", but (I repeat) that is not what has happend in reality.

 

HMRCE are a law unto themsleves.

[Dave J]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But that is not what has happened in a number of cases.

The builders T&Cs were found to be applicable and enforceable, and the buyer of the boat had to find £20,000+ many many months after buying the boat when the builder had his VAT audit and it was found he had not charged the standard rate of VAT as he should have done for those boats.

His T&Cs stated that if it was ever found to be subject to VAT at the standard rate then the boat owner would be liable, and that is what the HMRCE followed up on.

 

You can argue all you want that "the builder should pay it and that it is a civil debt", but (I repeat) that is not what has happend in reality.

 

HMRCE are a law unto themsleves.

That's exactly what my research has found. If you sign to accept liability you're effectively stuffed if HMRC come knocking. I'm guessing (but can't seem to get an straight answer) that if it says the owner then it may well be able to passed on with the ownership of the boat BUT if it says buyer then I think you'd be protected!

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, Dave J said:

That's exactly what my research has found. If you sign to accept liability you're effectively stuffed if HMRC come knocking. I'm guessing (but can't seem to get an straight answer) that if it says the owner then it may well be able to passed on with the ownership of the boat BUT if it says buyer then I think you'd be protected!

 

You may well be correct but I don't have enough knowledge to make a definitive statement. That is why I employ Accountants to look after me.

All I know is that the VAT liability can be 'chased' for 20 years.

 

Now if that means that (say) someone has sold their boat after 10 years ownership (from new) and have had the benefit  of the boat being zero rated, and the second owner had another 5 years benefit of being zero rated and the third ('current') owner has had (say) 3 years benefit of zero rated boating - who is responsible for the VAT Liability ?

 

HMRCE will not care who they make pay it, as long as it is paid.

[Tracy D'arth]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

HMRCE will not care who they make pay it, as long as it is paid.

And be assured, someone will pay. Make sure that is not you!

[Ronaldo47]

HMRC  probably rely on the fact that the average private individual would  find it easier to cough up rather than pay the  legal fees for an appeal or judicial review, with the added danger of having to pay the other side's costs if you lose. 

[john.k]

I recently sold some land here in Qld.....I.had a qualified tax accountants opinion for the buyer that the transaction was GST and CGT free (GST=VAT),but the buyer had to sign a separate contract that he would pay the GST if it became payable.....The tax accountants opinion was correct,and no tax was payable......but I could have been up for $100,000 in GST payment ,and as Im no longer in business ,I couldnt claim it back..

[OldGoat]

I haven't read all of the above (mea culpa), but from my own experience the 'issue' over survey reports is that they are only 'owned' or actionable by whoever commisioned and paid for the report. Others may look at if for information only - that is usually sufficient for most folk.

The pracite has change in ecent years so that an interested party (purchaser) can - if the surveyor offers it  - pay a fee for the rights  to the survey.

I've just gone through having a full hull survey - and I was mightly impressed by the measurements and comments of a Lloyds registered surveyor (just as well as I had connections with those venerable institution(s) carrying the mane in their title.

A proper hull survey is well worth the money both for the current owner and for a purchaser.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, OldGoat said:

I haven't read all of the above (mea culpa), but from my own experience the 'issue' over survey reports is that they are only 'owned' or actionable by whoever commisioned and paid for the report. Others may look at if for information only - that is usually sufficient for most folk.

The pracite has change in ecent years so that an interested party (purchaser) can - if the surveyor offers it  - pay a fee for the rights  to the survey.

I've just gone through having a full hull survey - and I was mightly impressed by the measurements and comments of a Lloyds registered surveyor (just as well as I had connections with those venerable institution(s) carrying the mane in their title.

A proper hull survey is well worth the money both for the current owner and for a purchaser.

 

The 'issue' is more that if the potential buyer actually buys the boat, the broker is saying they (the broker) will keep all of the 'ships papers' (proof of VAT paid, etc etc) and not give them to the new owner.

 

No one can understand why the broker would :

a) want them

b) think they have the right to keep them

[MtB]

1 hour ago, OldGoat said:

I haven't read all of the above (mea culpa),

 

 

Well you ought to, as you have the wrong end of the stick. 

 

Actually no it's worse than that, you have hold of the wrong stick in the first place!

 

[Spudwynk]

Iweve just had an offer accepted on a used boat through semi-pr8vate sale - couple who have a business doing up for sale boats that need work and selling them on. Advice online says do a credit check to make sure no outstanding finance agreement is linked to the boat. Worth doing? How do I go about it? Rough cost? 19 year old boat. Had 2 owners before reseller