Diesel propulsion splits - new advice from HMRC?

[ditchcrawler]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

And if he is honest, he will also put the sale on his annual tax return.

 

 

 

Dodgy move unles he is a registered retailer or whatever the correct wording is. Did you fill in a declaration?

[MtB]

11 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Dodgy move unles he is a registered retailer or whatever the correct wording is. Did you fill in a declaration?

 

Why on earth would I unless I bought some diesel from him? 

 

[LadyG]

I dont think farmers are allowed to re sell diesel because of the rules and regulations around handling and storage, and tax.

. Farmers typically buy red for propulsion, it goes in a tank for tractors etc. It would not be put in the household domestic heating tank or the farmers vehicles which are used on roads. There are, I believe, certain specific exceptions.

Edited August 19, 2024 by LadyG

[matty40s]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Which, in my experince, has been the norm since the system ws introduced.

 

You could only have 100% domestic if you had a permanent residential mooring.

This bit is bullocks , as there ain't a pdf that states it.

I could CC, and go and fill my front diesel tank, dedicated to the diesel stove only, and legitimately claim my 100% domestic.

I could CC, take a crt winter mooring next to a marina, or actually IN a marina and legitimately claim 100% domestic, as my propulsion is negligible.

 

Which ever the marina is in question,...

1. £1.17 is very greedy.

2. If they are asking BMF and HMRC questions, then they are making this up to suit themselves.

[Alan de Enfield]

6 hours ago, matty40s said:

This bit is bullocks , as there ain't a pdf that states it.

I could CC, and go and fill my front diesel tank, dedicated to the diesel stove only, and legitimately claim my 100% domestic.

I could CC, take a crt winter mooring next to a marina, or actually IN a marina and legitimately claim 100% domestic, as my propulsion is negligible.

 

Which ever the marina is in question,...

1. £1.17 is very greedy.

2. If they are asking BMF and HMRC questions, then they are making this up to suit themselves.

 

I won't cut & paste the Pdf as it upsets some folks - but the subject of twin tanks is clearly covered in section 4:5 of the relevant treasury document on changes in use of red diesel.

[Grassman]

12 hours ago, Ray T said:

Haven't had this at Kings Bromley.......yet!
KB also being part of the Aquavista empire.

 

The 60% figure is not too dissimilar to what we pay for our diesel road car.

 

 

 

Somebody told me yesterday that Kings Bromley were making changes along these lines.  Perhaps Lily Rose is also in an Aquavista marina? 

[Bod]

When the duty on propulsion fuel came out, all the offical information I could find, merely gave 60/40 split as a worked example, nothing more.

Narrow boat engine, max HP 30.       (Typical small 4 cylinder diesel digger engine)

Speed range used, 25%    HP 7.75    (When did you last use full throttle, for more than a few seconds?)

Non propulsion use          HP 4.5      (electrical generation, domestic hot water, exhaust noise, vibration etc.)

Power to propeller            HP 3.25.

In my opinion a 10/90 split, 10% propulsion declaration would be a  far more realistic representation of actual use.  For canals only, river use against the flow, or sea going against tide and weather could be very different.

 

Bod.

[Momac]

Recently the marina where I keep my boat said we can declare any split we wish.

Apparently HMRC do inspect the marinas records occasionally . So if a particular person has added fuel at full domestic rate in a pattern or quantity that suggests cruising rather than domestic use it may be noticed.

 

I guess if people travel around the system and refuel at various locations then numerous purchases at full domestic rate are obviously dishonest. But whether HMRC have the means to identify this pattern is  uncertain. 

 

[Bod]

In answer to the OP.

Reading this

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/fuel-used-in-private-pleasure-craft-and-for-private-pleasure-flying-excise-notice-554

Section 2.1 if read carefully you will see it only refers to Northern Ireland, at 40% duty.

Section 3.1-10 is the bit concerning us, read carefully it tells exactly what is required from us the user, and them the supplier.  We declare, they pay the declared amount to HMRC, and keep the records for 6 years.

 

The marina needs to learn to read properly.

 

Bod.

[GUMPY]

24 minutes ago, Momac said:

I guess if people travel around the system and refuel at various locations then numerous purchases at full domestic rate are obviously dishonest. But whether HMRC have the means to identify this pattern is  uncertain. 

I know several boaters who use the system and have only ever declared 100% domestic use. I would say HMRC either can't pick up on it or are not bothered.

[Tonka]

11 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But, the sellers have always been able to say they will acceot only a 60/40 split (and many have done so).

I cannot see anything in the message that is new, or changed from previous.

 

Did yor marina previously allow any combination of 'split' ?

If so, it's maybe just the way the marina will operate in future.

But the op stated 60 % propulsion. Most boaters would want 40 % propulsion which this would not allow. I usually take 30% propulsion 

[Momac]

5 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

I know several boaters who use the system and have only ever declared 100% domestic use. I would say HMRC either can't pick up on it or are not bothered.

Maybe that could change.

The government are looking at ways to collect more tax so this is one area which might be investigated.

 

[Lily Rose]

Yes, it's Aquavista.

 

Although I'm out of touch with current diesel prices for boats I thought the prices quoted in the email were high but I'm not too bothered as I generally buy elsewhere.

 

I have always been under the impression that a "default" (?) 60/40 split meant 40℅ propulsion but the Aquavista email has this the other way round. Maybe I was wrong, maybe they've read it wrong or maybe they are just erring on the side of caution to reduce any risk to them. We already know they are very risk-averse, at least in the area of health & safety.

 

I have no more idea than anyone else has as to what's behind this or what they have been told by HMRC et al, I was just quoting from the email sent to holders at one particular Aquavista marina.

[GUMPY]

1 minute ago, Momac said:

Maybe that could change.

The government are looking at ways to collect more tax so this is one area which might be investigated.

 

This has been said several times in the years since the 60/40 split came in.

It has never happened!  Mainly I believe because it's not cost effective as in it will cost more to police than it raises in revenue.

[Momac]

Just now, Lily Rose said:

 

 

I have always been under the impression that a "default" (?) 60/40 split meant 40℅ propulsion but the Aquavista email has this the other way round.

No

Its always been 60% propulsion, 40% domestic

[Lily Rose]

26 minutes ago, Momac said:

No

Its always been 60% propulsion, 40% domestic

 

Fairy Nuff, I was never 100% sure. Only about 60/40 in fact. Or maybe I was only 40% sure.

Edited August 20, 2024 by Lily Rose

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Momac said:

. But whether HMRC have the means to identify this pattern is  uncertain. 

 

Or if they can be bothered to 

[Tonka]

2 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Or if they can be bothered to 

What address do continuous cruisers use when they self declare 100% non propulsion

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I won't cut & paste the Pdf as it upsets some folks - but the subject of twin tanks is clearly covered in section 4:5 of the relevant treasury document on changes in use of red diesel.

As I understood it, if you live on a boat on a permanent mooring and you only move that boat to go and fill with diesel you could legitimately claim 100% domestic, it didn't say how far you could go for the diesel

[matty40s]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I won't cut & paste the Pdf as it upsets some folks - but the subject of twin tanks is clearly covered in section 4:5 of the relevant treasury document on changes in use of red diesel.

 

My point was..you said...

 

You could only have 100% domestic if you had a permanent residential mooring.

 

which is bullocks.

[Lady M]

So it may be but that is what HMRC state.

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, matty40s said:

 

My point was..you said...

 

You could only have 100% domestic if you had a permanent residential mooring.

 

which is bullocks.

 

Seconded. 

 

Or "Ball-cocks" as we tend to say in the world of plumbing.

 

 

It has to be ball cocks as the declaration is actually for "Intended use" of the fuel being purchased. If you steer your boat to a fuel pontoon intending to fill up with fue for forthcoming winter heating, this is fine. 

 

You could even perhaps change you mind about how to use it later on and still be legal, provided at the time of purchase you genuinely intended to use it for heating. 

[Nightwatch]

This is the potential issue with a progressively growing company becoming a major and majority Marina owner. They start to dictate to others what should be. With hindsight I guess we should have seen this coming.

[nicknorman]

14 hours ago, Quattrodave said:

We reciently found a local farmer that will sell red diesel at 92p per litre, god knows what he's buying it for....!!

Not particularly cheap. Couple of weeks ago we paid 87p at Norwood, Wheaton Aston was 87.9p. Our own marina, with moorer's discount, was £1.00

[davem399]

I have often wondered about the “intended use” when I filled up the tank at the end of a cruise on the shared ownership boat in which I used to have a share.  What I didn’t know is how the owner following me was going to use the boat.  Most would be cruising most days, but some could have used it as a floating cottage and spend most of the time moored up somewhere.