Fuel Declaration - deisel split????

[ditchcrawler]

Hmmm, not sure how you can justify 100% domestic, unless you tow the boat to the diesel pump!

If you are a genuine live aboard who pays utility bills, i.e. you do not cruise, you are allowed to go from your mooring to the diesel point to fill up and claim 100%. It would probably be stretching it if you moor in Braunston and go to Wheaton Aston for diesel :lol:

[Daio]

Interesting thought, how do you determine that your water is not already fully heated and / or batteries fully charged?

 

Keep the hot tap open and the Hoover on!

 

You're one of them Excise Men, aren't you. Sneaky, that.

[soldthehouse]

Would I have to pay the higher rate of tax on the diesel that I drink?

Only for as long as you survive

[Tim]

Damn! Cover is blown!

[Guest]

Even when you are under way, not all your diesel is being used for propulsion.

 

I leave my engine at a fast idle to charge batteries/heat water when waiting for/in locks.

 

For me, the 60/40 is not realistic, 80/20 is looking more likely.

[luctor et emergo]

Not quite sure how you work that out I am a CCer and in the summer claim 20% propulsion and in the winter 10% propulsion.

 

 

I know that this can turn ugly, but heho.

 

If only 20% of your engine hours are down to propulsion, you either don't travel very far, or you have a serious battery problem... Unless you have your diesel heater running in the summer?

 

 

[LEO]

True, but some boat yards are also happy to sell you 100% domestic.

 

Hi,

 

I buy 100% domestic from waterway sources, but it goes into a dedicated tank used for a Kabola.

 

It would be difficult to justify !00% domestic if diesel were put into a shared tank where fuel for propulsion is stored.

 

It's not until the buff envelope drops through the letter box and you see the sender is HMCR that you wonder if fiddling the books for a few quid is worth it.

 

Once those happy souls have started investigating one thing no telling where it will end and bearing in mind the economic situaution prevailing at the moment the Tax collectors will be ever more vigilant.

 

Leo.

[Naughty Cal]

Anyone claiming the 60/40 split is highly unlikely to be investigated, this is the recommended split for leisure boat use. We probably do quite well out of the 60/40 split. Anybody claiming near this split again is unlikely to be investigated but i suspect at some point some of the 20/80 or 10/90 splits will be investigated and it will be upto the boat owner to justify that split or refund the difference in tax.

[Tim]

I agree, I stick with the 60/40 even though my propulsion use is probably more, I can't be bothered to work it out so go with the guideline. I suspect that when the low sulphur fuel has to be used we'll all be using road diesel at full tax.

[cotswoldsman]

I know that this can turn ugly, but heho.

 

If only 20% of your engine hours are down to propulsion, you either don't travel very far, or you have a serious battery problem... Unless you have your diesel heater running in the summer?

 

 

 

No reason for it to turn ugly.

I think some times the problem on this forum is that people do not understand the definition of CCer yes you do have to be on a continuous journey but you do not have to be cruising every day. So in my case I might cruise for 4 hours in one week then on the other six days run my engine for 3 hours this in fact I think that is less than 20% propulsion and that is without going into the argument that on the day that I cruise for 4 hours the first 3 of those hours are used for charging my batteries.

 

Hi,

 

I buy 100% domestic from waterway sources, but it goes into a dedicated tank used for a Kabola.

 

It would be difficult to justify !00% domestic if diesel were put into a shared tank where fuel for propulsion is stored.

 

It's not until the buff envelope drops through the letter box and you see the sender is HMCR that you wonder if fiddling the books for a few quid is worth it.

 

Once those happy souls have started investigating one thing no telling where it will end and bearing in mind the economic situaution prevailing at the moment the Tax collectors will be ever more vigilant.

 

Leo.

 

I am not a betting man but I would bet that no one will be investigated. It was estimated that the extra revenue collected when the change came in would be just over £1.5 million

 

Anyone claiming the 60/40 split is highly unlikely to be investigated, this is the recommended split for leisure boat use. We probably do quite well out of the 60/40 split. Anybody claiming near this split again is unlikely to be investigated but i suspect at some point some of the 20/80 or 10/90 splits will be investigated and it will be upto the boat owner to justify that split or refund the difference in tax.

 

you might well be right but I doubt it I declare as I have said before 90/10 in winter and 80/20 in summer this compared to a 60/40 means on the diesel I use I pay about £300 less in duty than a 60/40 split. Now should I be wrong by mistake with my split by even 10% this would mean I am liable for a further £30 - £50 can you imagine the time and paper work involved for HMRC to get this extra money. Plus the fact that I am not wrong with my declaration so they would do all that paper work for no reason. Last summer on the Lancaster canal I cruised less that 100 miles between mid May and September.

[Machpoint005]

>> HMRC has indicated, I think, that a 60/40 split for a 'normal' leisure boater (whoever she may be) is unlikely to be questioned.<<

 

 

>>Anyone claiming the 60/40 split is highly unlikely to be investigated, this is the recommended split for leisure boat use. <<

 

Somebody out there isn't reading our posts, Phylis.

Clearly the '60/40 is normal' idea applies to leisure boaters. Liveaboards aren't leisure boaters. CCers probably aren't, either, in this context: they are residential boaters who keep moving (allegedly).

 

 

 

 

 

(Spilin')

Edited July 6, 2010 by Machpoint005

[Priston]

I am unaware that HMRC are in fact collecting the declarations from sellers, at least in the cases of the few I have spoken to.

[alan_fincher]

The HMRC directive on the topic actually makes no reference at all to "leisure" boaters, although the whole document is called "Fuel used in private pleasure craft and for private pleasure-flying" HMRC Reference: Notice 554 (April 2009).

 

This document does includes comment about "residential boat owner" and "continuous cruiser", but still treats both (apparently) as "private pleasure craft".

 

This section......

 

Analysis by both the industry and HMRC suggests that a split of 60% for propulsion and 40% for other use probably reflects most people’s fuel use and it is therefore likely that many users will declare such an apportionment. This will make it easier for suppliers (RDCOs) to work out the additional duty and VAT. However, where you know that your propulsion use may be more or less than the above apportionment split or a craft clearly has no non-propulsion fuel use, then you must declare your actual intended usage.

 

actually makes no statement about the intended use of the boat, what heating arrangements (if any) it has. It also makes no distinction between inland craft and sea going craft.

 

On that basis the part highlighted sounds frankly unsustainable, once you consider the wide range of boats and their uses that this covers.

[cotswoldsman]

Somebody out there isn't reading our posts, Phylis.

Clearly the '60/40 is normal' idea applies to leisure boaters. Liveaboards aren't leisure boaters. CCers probably aren't, either, in this context: they are residential boaters who keep moving (allegedly).

 

 

 

 

 

(Spilin')

 

Not quite sure what an allegedly CCer is you are either a CCer or not a CCer

[Nightwatch]

unless it's for propulsion...

It's likely to slow you down I would have thought.

 

Martyn

 

 

Keep the hot tap open and the Hoover on!

 

You're one of them Excise Men, aren't you. Sneaky, that.

Or any other make of vacuum cleaner.

[AlanH]

Not quite sure what an allegedly CCer is you are either a CCer or not a CCer

Then how do you describe the boater who has no base mooring and moors in the same place online for months on end?

[cotswoldsman]

Then how do you describe the boater who has no base mooring and moors in the same place online for months on end?

 

Not sure but he is not a CCer

[nb Innisfree]

you might well be right but I doubt it I declare as I have said before 90/10 in winter and 80/20 in summer this compared to a 60/40 means on the diesel I use I pay about £300 less in duty than a 60/40 split. Now should I be wrong by mistake with my split by even 10% this would mean I am liable for a further £30 - £50 can you imagine the time and paper work involved for HMRC to get this extra money. Plus the fact that I am not wrong with my declaration so they would do all that paper work for no reason. Last summer on the Lancaster canal I cruised less that 100 miles between mid May and September.

 

Just to avoid any confusion the first figure is propulsion, I think you have got your split the wrong way round.

 

My take on HMRC investigating, I think if they take any legal action they will make sure it's an obvious open and shut case such as ccers claiming 100%, they won't waste time and money on a lost cause. They will do it sometime or another as a warning to others not to extract the urine.

Edited July 6, 2010 by nb Innisfree

[cotswoldsman]

Just to avoid any confusion the first figure is propulsion, I think you have got your split the wrong way round.

 

My take on HMRC investigating, I think if they take any legal action they will make sure it's an obvious open and shut case such as ccers claiming 100%, they won't waste time and money on a lost cause. They will do it sometime or another as a warning to others not to extract the urine.

 

Silly me!!

[ymu]

No Phylis, you can't simply pull a percentage from thin air. If asked by HMCR you have to be able to justify your split. A static liveaboard could maybe claim the majority for power/heating, but a CC for example will have trouble convincing the taxman that he has only used 20% of his diesel for propulsion.

Wrong way around. Most static liveaboards will have a mains hook-up (if it's a legal residential mooring), so 100% of their diesel use is for propulsion unless they have diesel heating. A CCer might cruise one day in 14, and probably runs their engine for about the same amount of time on non-cruising days as they do on cruising days, making 10/90 rather trivial to justify (and somewhat in favour of the taxman). Our fuel boat is adamant that it should be 0/100 in the winter for CCers on winter moorings with no mains hook-up - and he's right, of course - although I'm not sure he's won that argument with HMRC yet.

[Ange]

We claimed 100% when we were iced in for six weeks over the winter - Dave took cans to the nearest marina to fill up the tank and they happily obliged and didn't question the declaration. An extreme example I know - just making the point that it is possible. Also I've often wondered if your journey is purely to fill up to service your heating / electricity needs should it be treated as propulsion? After all the point is to distinguish between leisure and domestic isn't it?

 

We do tend to dawdle on our journies because that's the whole point of it for us. When we were working and hiring we'd cover as much ground as we could, now we arrive in an area, decide we rather like it and spend a fortnight there. The next village is just a lovely so we spend a week there (not on restricted moorings I hasten to add!!) Perfectly within the rules, and perfectly entitled to claim very low propulsion proportions. We regularly claim 10/90 and 20/80 and we've kept records to back it up.

 

The only time we declared 60/40 was when we first moved aboard and had to make it from just below Milton Keynes to a few miles beyond the Wigan Flight in time for my dad's 70th birthday - we did it in 10 days.

[ymu]

... We do tend to dawdle on our journies because that's the whole point of it for us. When we were working and hiring we'd cover as much ground as we could, now we arrive in an area, decide we rather like it and spend a fortnight there. The next village is just a lovely so we spend a week there (not on restricted moorings I hasten to add!!) Perfectly within the rules...

Well, precisely. If you're lucky enough to live your whole life cruising the canals, why on earth would you race through and never explore anywhere beyond them?

[dor]

A couple of points / observations.

 

It is not clear in many of the split figures above which way round they are. Perhaps people could write 30P/70 to show which figure is used for propulsion. The 60/40 split suggested by HMRD gives the propulsion figure first.

 

Also, I understand that HMRC's split was based on "pleasure boaters" which included a large number of coastal / river cruisers. I think it is reasonable to assume that their propulsion proportion would be a lot higher than the majority of narrowboat users who commonly run their engines whilst moored up, so giving a propulsion figure of 30 or 40% should be quite acceptble to them.

 

I suspect at some time HMRC might pick on one or two of the 0P or 10P declarers 'pour encourager les autres'.

Edited July 7, 2010 by dor

[alan_fincher]

Also I've often wondered if your journey is purely to fill up to service your heating / electricity needs should it be treated as propulsion?

No it can't.

 

If you move your boat, then it's "propulsion", whatever the reason you are moving your boat.

 

If I had to guess, (and one or two resellers have made the same point to me), if HMRC wish to pursue a few test cases for maximum publicity, they are most likely to go after people who regularly motor into a marina, fill up, then make a "100% other" declaration.

 

OK, if it's going into a single tank dedicated for heating, but if you have a shared tank with propulsion, how can you be making the trip to the marina (or wherever) without some of the use of the fuel in your single tank being "propulsion".

 

We don't live-aboard, but I remain unconvinced I could establish a case that more than 40% of our use was ever non-propulsion, so, rightly or wrongly, in the absence of anything else we declare 60% propulsion / 40% other. The more I hear though, the bigger mugs I'm wondering if we are!

[koukouvagia]

OK, if it's going into a single tank dedicated for heating, but if you have a shared tank with propulsion, how can you be making the trip to the marina (or wherever) without some of the use of the fuel in your single tank being "propulsion".

 

This is one very good reason why I always buy my diesel from Bletchley and Argus - during last winter I genuinely didn't move our boats for a couple of months and so was filling up 100% non-propulsion.

 

BTW, it'll be interesting to see what happens if the breasted-up gravel boats meet Peter Hawker's breasted up diesel boats on the Tring Summit - someone's going to have to single out.