sh!t fuel - ghastly price

[Ex- Member]

You have now changed your story. You know it, and I know it. But what else could you do now I've shown you evidence of a case where one is guilty until he can prove he is innocent.

 

He has not been convicted of "everything he owns being from ill gotten gains". That has neither been prosecuted nor proven. He has been convicted of not filling in a tax return which would have shown a 3.5k liability for tax. As a result, unless he can prove where everything has come from, they are having the lot. He couldn't, and they did. No conviction. But they took everything.

 

 

 

Actually, what they could do is say "We think you owe us 10 grand". If you couldn't prove you didn't then, I'm afraid, you would get a conviction for 10 grand.

Blimy gibbo you surely are taking the micky her.

 

The guy was legally obliged to fill in tax returns and keep associated records. HE Didn't so the judge gave HMRC the right to recover taxes they felt due. As swtated again and again and again and again if you are legally required to keep records and don't HMRC have the right to claim,the onus is then on the person who hasn't kept records to prove otherwise.

 

I havent changed anything I said.

 

 

 

 

You have now changed your story. You know it, and I know it. But what else could you do now I've shown you evidence of a case where one is guilty until he can prove he is innocent.

You're showing me what I've stated all day

[Gibbo]

As swtated again and again and again and again if you are legally required to keep records and don't HMRC have the right to claim,the onus is then on the person who hasn't kept records to prove otherwise.

 

I havent changed anything I said.

 

Yes you have. You previously said HMRC would have to prove you have defrauded them of money (paraphrased). They don't, it is sufficient for them to say "We think you have", without actually having any evidence. If you can't prove otherwise, then you're guilty.

[Ex- Member]

Yes you have. You previously said HMRC would have to prove you have defrauded them of money (paraphrased). They don't, it is sufficient for them to say "We think you have", without actually having any evidence. If you can't prove otherwise, then you're guilty.

 

Who said HMRC are claiming without evidence? That's simply an assumption by you.

 

ETA

 

I also suggest you read the appeal where all the claims made by HMRC are clearly laid out, it also includes valuations on property and other assets which were the basis of the claims, oh and backed by the Judge

 

Paragraph 16 onwards.

 

I wouldn't keep suggesting HMRC make arbitrary claims with no evidence against businesses, they may take umbrage to that and start looking at your business in particular

 

 

http://www.bailii.or...im/2011/75.html

 

nite nite

Edited August 26, 2011 by Julynian

[BlueStringPudding]

Whenever I buy diesel I always write down the name and number of Dave Mayall's boat, I suggest every boater does the same.

 

[Ex- Member]

 

Brilliant

 

 

 

[Blackrat]

Your thought's please.

 

If I have to buy fuel at a split of 60/40 as set by the supplier, whereas my declaration would have been 40/60. Can I refuse to sign the declaration, as to do so IMO would be a false declaration,and add to the form that I have

 

"Declined to sign as to do so would be a false declaration. The declared split is 40/60 and reclaim the sum of £xxx.xx + £xx.xx Vat on the purchase".

 

Could I then re-claim the excess from HMRC? When you consider that on 200L at current figures the amount of over-charge is £18.72 + 93p VAT.

[Tim]

Your thought's please.

 

If I have to buy fuel at a split of 60/40 as set by the supplier, whereas my declaration would have been 40/60. Can I refuse to sign the declaration, as to do so IMO would be a false declaration,and add to the form that I have

 

"Declined to sign as to do so would be a false declaration. The declared split is 40/60 and reclaim the sum of £xxx.xx + £xx.xx Vat on the purchase".

 

Could I then re-claim the excess from HMRC? When you consider that on 200L at current figures the amount of over-charge is £18.72 + 93p VAT.

 

Much simpler to put the same amount in at 20/80 next time you fill up.

[Ex- Member]

If I have to buy fuel at a split of 60/40 as set by the supplier, whereas my declaration would have been 40/60. Can I refuse to sign the declaration, as to do so IMO would be a false declaration,and add to the form that I have

If the seller sells at 60/40 only and you buy at that you are in affect accepting that as your declaration. so the rest of your question is irrelevant. I would have thought any declaration has to be made prior to purchase, although I haven't purchased from canal side so don't know for sure.

 

"Declined to sign as to do so would be a false declaration. The declared split is 40/60 and reclaim the sum of £xxx.xx + £xx.xx Vat on the purchase".

 

Could I then re-claim the excess from HMRC? When you consider that on 200L at current figures the amount of over-charge is £18.72 + 93p VAT.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2011 by Julynian

[Blackrat]

If I have to buy fuel at a split of 60/40 as set by the supplier, whereas my declaration would have been 40/60. Can I refuse to sign the declaration, as to do so IMO would be a false declaration,and add to the form that I have

If the seller sells at 60/40 only and you buy at that you are in affect accepting that as your declaration. so the rest of your question is irrelevant. I would have thought any declaration has to be made prior to purchase, although I haven't purchased from canal side so don't know for sure.

 

"Declined to sign as to do so would be a false declaration. The declared split is 40/60 and reclaim the sum of £xxx.xx + £xx.xx Vat on the purchase".

 

Could I then re-claim the excess from HMRC? When you consider that on 200L at current figures the amount of over-charge is £18.72 + 93p VAT.

 

Under the regs, as I read them, it is down to the purchaser to stipulate the split, not the seller and therefore his split is not relevant, and to sign such a declaration would be a false declaration.

 

Suppliers are only, as far as I'm aware stating the 60/40 split to make it easier for them to calculate their return to HMRC, a matter of convenence.

 

To sign such a document as laid-out would in effect be an offence!! It would be the same as if I did this on my VAT return each 1/4.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Blackrat

[adam1uk]

Under the regs, as I read them, it is down to the purchaser to stipulate the split, not the seller and therefore his split is not relevant, and to sign such a declaration would be a false declaration.

 

We went through all this a few pages back. If you don't want that split, don't buy that fuel.

[Ex- Member]

Under the regs, as I read them, it is down to the purchaser to stipulate the split, not the seller and therefore his split is not relevant, and to sign such a declaration would be a false declaration.

 

 

If that's the sellers terms then you can decide to take them or leave them. I personally wouldn't buy from any seller who stipulates such terms, and if your split is different to the sellers then you should do the same, or as Tim suggested make up the difference on your next purchase of fuel.

 

 

[Blackrat]

We went through all this a few pages back. If you don't want that split, don't buy that fuel.

 

 

Adam

 

The operative word in my question was Have to buy

[Ex- Member]

Adam

 

The operative word in my question was Have to buy

 

 

You don't have to buy, you can choose not to.

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

You don't have to buy, you can choose not to.

Maybe there is only one retailer at Shoeburyness. But even so he can chose his terms of sale and unfortunately if you don't like them you have to find an alternative or accept his conditions.

[Smelly]

All this discussion of a presumption of innocence I suspect is to confuse two different standards of proof... An example.

 

HMRC gather returns from a number of boatyards and NB Continuous Cruiser has repeatedly declared nil. They gather BW records and it seems he is a genuine CCer indicating their 60:40 estimation should apply. They write to Mr Smith, NB Continuous Cruiser and say Mr Smith, looking at these returns and BW's records we believe you owe us 2 grand in tax.

 

That decision and argument of any ensuing liability is made on the balance of probabilities.

 

Mr Smith has three choices;

 

(1) he can come up with all the garage invoices for the white he's been using for propulsion, and for good measure say "by your records I've not bought any diesel for 3 months but look; the tank's nearly full!"

 

(2) he can pay the 2 grand, hoping they won't prosecute him but with mitigation if they do.

 

(3) he can say "no I don't, look there's some white in this jerry can, by the way can you lend me a tenner I've nearly run out". That white in his jerry can is the only evidence he offers.

 

In case 3 he becomes guilty of making false statements and a hypothetical avoidance offence. He gets prosecuted and convicted because he has, beyond reasonable doubt committed the offences.

 

In case 2 although he is guilty of making false declarations HMRC will probably leave him alone; a presumption of innocence is immediately rebutted on an admission of guilt, either by implication or otherwise, but even though he's forfeited his convention rights he's come clean... fairy nuff. They've done enough to establish the liability and the burden of proof has always rested with the boater because they legislated that way.

 

In case 1 he's innocent & will remain presumed so to be until HMRC provide compelling evidence otherwise.

 

 

In cases where HMRC have already shown an avoided liability by way of fraudulent declarations it's a bit bleeding obvious; simply from the liability, that something's wrong; in such cases, that level of certainty is enough to rebut a presumption of innocence.

 

 

 

A different example is simpler; a murderer found with blood on his hands and his victim's fresh warm intestines dangling from his maw will be locked up; I don't think anyone would argue otherwise; that's why it's only a presumption; it can be rebutted!

Edited August 26, 2011 by Smelly

[mayalld]

Adam

 

The operative word in my question was Have to buy

And the counter to that is that you do NOT have to buy.

 

Not buying may be inconvenient but you have the option not to buy.

 

If you want to buy a split that a retailer doesn't sell then for your purposes that dealer doesn't exist

[Pretty Funked Up]

By reading what you wrote.

 

Hmm I think you were reading from the wrong end of the stick then!

 

If it was my tank that was at fault then i wouldve expected it to have happened before or even reoccur when fueling again. It hasnt.

If they were pleasent or didnt have compulsory split or gave good fuel then I woulodnt have mentioned it but they ticked all 3 boxes for me I'm afraid.

 

They should take a leaf out of the lovely people at nantwich's book. Great service from happy people! keep up the good work chaps!

 

I'm in Llangollen basin now so its all a long way behind me now

[AndrewBB]

I usually buy fuel for my boat from Morrisons, no questions no declaration and its the same price as yards sometimes cheaper!

[nb Innisfree]

I usually buy fuel for my boat from Morrisons, no questions no declaration and its the same price as yards sometimes cheaper!

 

Red diesel?

 

What price?

[BlueStringPudding]

Hmm I think you were reading from the wrong end of the stick then!

 

If it was my tank that was at fault then i wouldve expected it to have happened before or even reoccur when fueling again. It hasnt.

If they were pleasent or didnt have compulsory split or gave good fuel then I woulodnt have mentioned it but they ticked all 3 boxes for me I'm afraid.

 

They should take a leaf out of the lovely people at nantwich's book. Great service from happy people! keep up the good work chaps!

 

I'm in Llangollen basin now so its all a long way behind me now

That had been my experience too. Despite the very public debate about what appeared to be poor customer service or poorly trained staff or both, on top of the forced fuel split, they clearly haven't rectified either. No smoke without fire and there's been two lots of smoke now about the same boatyard!

[davidc]

The small percentage figures involved in the split debate could be argued down to a few pence per litre. Any investigation that could prove that a boater is claiming more then they should would take months, they would have to be followed and monitored daily noting engine running times and cruising times, there's no other way they can get that information unless collated by the boaters them selves, those types of investigations would cost tens of thousands of pounds to investigate and prosecute let alone the legal costs, all this to prosecute one boater, even HMRC with money to burn will do the maths and realise that the thousands of drops they would hope to discourage the costs involved in doing so would never give any pay back. Especially when there are much bigger fish to fry, with far bigger returns.

 

 

I do not know if this would apply here;

But a few years back in Newcastle HMRC did a fuel check on all taxi's for red, there had been checks before but this time there confiscated the guilt taxis drivers taxis for fuel Tax evasion, the drivers concerned where advise by a solicitor to accept HMRC bill for lost fuel revenue to get there taxis released, as to fight them would take years to get back there taxies.

with the HMRC you are guilty until you prove you are innocent.

Edited August 29, 2011 by davidc

[GeoffS]

I have not read all of this thread so apologies if I am repeating anything.

 

I stopped in Warwick to fill up. The office was shut as it was bank holiday but a sign outside said 60/40 split only and the price is 108ppl. That makes Domestic about 90ppl.

 

I stopped again at Stockton top lock and was told 60/40 split only and the price is 125ppl. By my calculation that makes Domestic 105ppl. Quite a difference in a few miles. I was also told that if I turned up in a car with a jerry can I would be charged 90ppl and indeed the last sale showing on the pump was 90ppl.

[luctor et emergo]

I have not read all of this thread so apologies if I am repeating anything.

 

I stopped in Warwick to fill up. The office was shut as it was bank holiday but a sign outside said 60/40 split only and the price is 108ppl. That makes Domestic about 90ppl.

 

I stopped again at Stockton top lock and was told 60/40 split only and the price is 125ppl. By my calculation that makes Domestic 105ppl. Quite a difference in a few miles. I was also told that if I turned up in a car with a jerry can I would be charged 90ppl and indeed the last sale showing on the pump was 90ppl.

 

 

why is everybody bemoaning the fact that they feel that they are ripped of by unscroupelous boatyards? Are there no local fuel boats to support?

 

(87 ppl domestic, any split you like... :-0 )

[Liam]

Currently waiting on another bulk delivery, but should be around the 82ppl mark (domestic) with any split you declare.

[FadeToScarlet]

why is everybody bemoaning the fact that they feel that they are ripped of by unscroupelous boatyards? Are there no local fuel boats to support?

 

(87 ppl domestic, any split you like... :-0 )

 

Come over to Cambridge then!

 

No fuel boats round here, but we did buy the majority of the diesel we needed for our summer cruise from Towcester.