The VAT man cometh.

[Gary Peacock]

This was just posted on the DBA site it looks like it's starting.

(Don't like to say I told you so!)

 

 

 

 

promised I wouldn't mention this . . .

 

Reply from central VAT office

 

"I am able to confirm the definition given in Notice 744C .

However, for a vessel to be treated as a “qualifying ship” it must have features of a commercial design, such as a cargo hold, even if it is used a residential accommodation.

 

I hope the above information is to your satisfaction and please do not hesitate to contact the National Advice Service should you require further guidance."

 

So I guess that a vessel retaining *something* of a cargo hold may qualify. Wonder if they'd accept a boat built for cargo, then converted and used for charter sailing?

[Alastair]

Yeah, that was me.

 

I wish I had the cash to have a new boat built. I'd put very large diesel tanks, plus a hold for coal. Sell at little above cost to people on the waterways, get bulk deliveries. I'd have to comply with ea regs, vat reg etc, but wouldn't mind that.

[John Orentas]

Gary.

 

I only have a small screen, what's the chimp doing

 

John Squeers

[ChrisPy]

Gary.

 

I only have a small screen, what's the chimp doing

 

John Squeers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

naughty !!

Edited December 8, 2004 by chris polley

[Gary Peacock]

The chimp is now on steroids for people with small screens!

[Gary Stacey]

Dont see how the VAT man can come to you retrospectively if you have it in writing that your boat complies with zero rating critieria

 

 

Gary

[rustyduck]

Don't be so sure Gary - this is exactly what he's done with section 660.

 

Contractors have followed advice given by C&E which was posted on their website and published in literature for many years. Now we're told that it's deemed a loophole and they want paying for any payments that we have made in this and previous years.

 

Jump up and down all you like, say they can't do this without changing the law etc. If they see a way of getting some more money, tough luck, you have to pay up.

 

The phrase 'not a leg to stand on' comes to mind.

[Gary Peacock]

Dont see how the VAT man can come to you retrospectively if you have it in writing that your boat complies with zero rating critieria

Gary

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The VAT man can not take any action against Joe public retrospectively but does take action against the builder.

 

Vat is a self assessing tax and it is the responsibility of the VAT registered supplier to establish the correct liability of any given supply.

 

 

If you have specific written instruction from customs to zero rate a specific vessel and you can satisfy them you provided and made them aware of all relevant information you can get a ruling reversed.

 

 

Since officially they don't give this, you have to rely on individual customs officers blunders to overturn a ruling.

 

If you do have it in writing look closely to see if is actually giving guidance or permission. Guidance is very different to permission, guidance would not be valid if you did not disclose the lack of a cargo hold for instance.

They can choose which facts you did or did not disclose to them to be relevant to them making a ruling that no misdirection took place on their part.

The letter would also need to be to the supplier and not to the purchaser who customs deem to be a third party.

 

Last year lots of people thought their boats were qualifying vessels, now the majority of these in the view of Customs are definitely not.

Customs will attempt to collect that duty from the suppliers because it was their responsibility to establish the correct liability of any given supply.

 

It's not fair but they make the rules and they make them to suit Customs & Excise not the people.

 

 

Gary

[Richard Bustens]

YOU ARE ALL LOOKING AT THE WRONG BITS OF LEGISLATION

THIS IS NOT THE SECTION THAT GIVES YOU VAT FREE ON A NARROW BOAT..

AND THE SECTIONS THAT HAVE CHANGED ARE NOT THE RELAVANT BITS ..

Edited December 8, 2004 by Richard Bustens

[Gary Peacock]

Hi Richard

 

Do you know something the BMF, DBA & CBA and Daniel Taylor at New kings Beam House don't?

 

If so please tell, after a year of this it would be good to have a new approach.

 

But be careful if you have developed a cunning plan that they don't want to be in on it!

 

It would be naive to think C&E don't follow closely the forums. (Wink)

 

 

Cheers

 

Gary

[Alastair]

Richard, can you please not shout? We aren't all wrong, and we are looking at the relevant bits. I've been guided to them by HMC&E and the people who got the original ruling thru years ago.

 

Just because you were lucky and had one official give you an opinion, doesn't make everyone else wrong.

 

Since this affects G P's business, I suspect he's had a more thorough look at it than you and I.

 

So could you just tone it down a bit, please?

 

BTW, legislation hasn't changed, just interpretation.

[Richard Bustens]

BUT THAT IS NOT THE RELAVANT SECTION THAT IS FOR HOUSE BOATS. and there aint no way you can be a houseboat

I have been in discusions for three years with vat office and we have never refered to that before. and only last month i was given the ok to get some bits vat free and othere not to be vat free.

Garry pm your phone no

Edited December 8, 2004 by Richard Bustens

[Alastair]

Will you please stop shouting?

 

The 744C section is about qualifying 'ships' with commercial attributes, I didn't mention houseboats.

 

"there ain't no way you can be a houseboat."

 

How on earth would you know, sunshine, you've never seen my boat. It's a 46ft boat converted for living aboard, into a living house. I live on it, it has furniture, rooms; what do you call a houseboat?

[Richard Bustens]

Posted editied by Jon, some comments have been removed

if you follow the links on this thread it is all ref, 701/20 and that is Caravans and houseboats.

And that is not the way i am doing this i am following a totaly diferent route.

One that has been passed by the vat office and quote from corispondance from them "Customs accept (following tribunal rulings) that houseboats with engines which are used as living accommodation,even though they can move under there own power, are qualifying ships provided they are of a gross tonnage of not less than 15 tons. " etc etc

744c and this is not the first time on this thread it has been mentioned is not the papers that have been re-worded. but 701/20 i think

Two questions Alister 1 do you have a engine 2 do you comply with the 15 tons ie LxBxD of hull in Mtr X.235 = over 15 tons? at 46' you could just fit in.

Edited December 9, 2004 by Jon

[Gary Stacey]

quote

 

"I am able to confirm the definition given in Notice 744C .

However, for a vessel to be treated as a “qualifying ship” it must have features of a commercial design, such as a cargo hold, even if it is used a residential accommodation"

 

 

Surely by doing this they are trying to overturn the tribunal decision in Everett V C & E (1994) No 11736

 

“Customs & Excise now accept that any vessel which is designed or adapted so as to be capable of use as a permanent habitation and which is over 15 ton gross tonnage is a qualifying Ship under the terms of item 1 Group 8 Schedule 8 of the vat act 1994, and can therefore be zero rated for vat purposes, The question of residential use does not apply, the vessel merely has to be capable of being used for residential purposes, may be self-propelled, and does not have to be permanently moored."

 

I dont believe form 744c mentions anywhere that a boat needs to have a hold to qualify

 

 

Gary

[Gary Stacey]

Just checked 744c again online on the HMCE website and there is absolutely no mention of a boat requiring a hold to qualify.

 

 

Gary

[Richard Bustens]

I agree with Garry S

I dont think 744c has changed at all ,only 701/20 and that referes to a houseboat one with no engine ,and does not have to compply with th 15 ton bit.

[Alastair]

the bit that Gary Peacock quoted was an official response from HMC&E, in response to a query regarding my boat.

 

HMC&E can overturn their own tribunal rulings if they want.

[Gary Stacey]

Yes but if their own documentation (notice 744c) does not contain any referece to a later ruling then surely this is misdirection on their part? As the VAT office have previously stated VAT is self assessment which in my mind should be based on the information at hand ie their guidance domcuments 744c

 

Gary

[Richard Bustens]

.

 

HMC&E can overturn their own tribunal rulings if they want.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well i sort of accept that they may be able to change the wording as they wish .

But there is no way they can change a tribunal ruling willy nilly, or there would be no point in having tribunals.

[Bernie]

I do think this subject should end now it is going nowhere.

[Richard Bustens]

Bernie i agree, lock it then.

[Bernie]

Since this topic appears to be going nowhere and just causing arguments with some ill feeling I have locked it.

[Jon]

Guys,

 

I realise that this is a heated topic, but please try to remain calm! There doesn't seem to be a definitive answer to this at the moment. If anyone does get a final, accurate and definitive answer then please contact me via PM and I will add it to this topic.

 

Many thanks,

 

Jon

[Jon]

Alastair has asked me to add the following:

 

I've had more info from VAT Central

 

"The qualifying test is based on the design of the ship and not on residential use. Generally, where the terms of item 1 of Group 8 of the VAT Act 1994 are satisfied the supply may be zero-rated. If the vessel is designed for recreation or pleasure, for example a yacht then the supply will not be treated as zero-rated.

 

The supply of a partly completed craft (that is shell) described as a houseboat, whatever the eventual tonnage, to other boatyards or customers is a standard rated supply.

 

Where a VAT registered trader provides the conversion of the vessel, as long as the converted vessel remains the type that would still qualify as a qualifying ship, then these services may be zero-rated under items 1 and 2A of Group 8 of the VAT Act 1994."

 

This is still 'hedging' things a bit.

 

If anyone has anything to add to this topic then please let me know.

 

Cheers

 

Jon