sh!t fuel - ghastly price

[David Schweizer]

I am no expert but surely this would mean the merging of Data for a possible prosecution before the start of legal proceedings?

If the HMRC or BW believe they have a case to prosecute, and that another organization (or person) has information that would advance that case, they can ask for, and expect to receive that information.

 

As far as I am aware, and despite common belief to the contrary, even Priests and the Legal Profession are not excempt from the obligation to provide evidence if the Court demands it. Of course they can refuse, but will then risk prosection for Contempt of Court.

Edited August 23, 2011 by David Schweizer

[Ex- Member]

If there is a prosecution, and a conviction results, then you can expect it to be big news. HMRC are ruthless in publicising stories to get the "don't screw with us" message out there.

 

However, until there is a conviction, HMRC have no interest in publicising it.

They could lose, and if they do, they would want to bury the news, so they have every interest in keeping their powder dry. The person being prosecuted has almost certainly been advised to keep quiet by his solicitor, an the grounds that he is going to lose, and that HMRC will seek a smaller penalty if he is a good boy.

 

 

 

HMRC are shrewd operators, when it comes to encouraging compliance.

 

Mounting a prosecution for incorrect declarations will be an expensive job, way out of proportion to the penalties that will result, but that doesn't matter to them. The fact that they HAVE prosecuted will ensure that the laisez faire attitude of "well, they will never come looking" is gone forever. One prosecution to prove that they can should ensure a massive improvement in compliance from other boaters for a good couple of years.

 

 

I'm talking about the press, if someone is charged then it's public record and the press can report on it. My point is that if this was the case, it would be quite a big story being the first prosecution undertaken under new legislation. I don't for a minuet believe anyone has been charged / prosecuted or let alone convicted.

 

 

Someone mentioned HMRC strictness on farmers also, this is completely different to fuel split for boating. Farmers mostly pay no duty, but can profit massively from selling that fuel illegally or using it illegally, a single boater claiming a split is miniscule in comparison. If he claimed 99% of fuel was domestic, there's too much ambiguity to prove or disprove that. And even claiming 100% from canal outlets can't prove wrong doing, as you could have easilly used White diesel from a local garage for propulsion. It's almost impossible to prove either way.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Julynian

[ditchcrawler]

I have not the slightest intention of correcting you.

 

 

 

You have fallen into the trap of believing that DPA prohibits sharing data.

 

Whilst this myth has grown up, largely due to the "can't do that because of DPA", it is crap.

A bit like the H&S being used as an excuse for not doing anything.

[mayalld]

I'm talking about the press, if someone is charged then it's public record and the press can report on it. My point is that if this was the case, it would be quite a big story being the first prosecution undertaken under new legislation.

 

Big news to us, yes.

 

To the mainstream press, no.

 

To the boating press, yes.

 

Whilst the national papers are in a position to scan every court list for anything interesting, they won't find it interesting. The waterways press would be interested, but they don't have the resources to watch every court to notice it.

[Dominic M]

I'm talking about the press, if someone is charged then it's public record and the press can report on it. My point is that if this was the case, it would be quite a big story being the first prosecution undertaken under new legislation. I don't for a minuet believe anyone has been charged / prosecuted or let alone convicted.

 

 

Someone mentioned HMRC strictness on farmers also, this is completely different to fuel split for boating. Farmers mostly pay no duty, but can profit massively from selling that fuel illegally or using it illegally, a single boater claiming a split is miniscule in comparison. If he claimed 99% of fuel was domestic, there's too much ambiguity to prove or disprove that. And even claiming 100% from canal outlets can't prove wrong doing, as you could have easilly used White diesel from a local garage for propulsion. It's almost impossible to prove either way.

Please don't take umbrage, Julynian, but that is an extraordinary contention about farmers. Firstly, they do pay duty on red diesel at the rate of just over 11p per litre at present. They have to account for their usage, so if they can't explain the disappearance of considerable quantities of their gasoil, they will be subject to an exhaustive investigation.

 

You may choose to believe that HMRC will never pursue some boat owners over their declarations, but I think that is very complacent. We may live in a country where you believe the burden of proof is on the investigator, but that is not the reality with tax and duty avoidance investigations. A person licensed as a continuous cruiser claiming 100% relief will almost certainly be hung out to dry, and I would have a fair bet that sooner or later, HMRC will make an example of some of them.

 

Please don't shoot the messenger!

Edited August 23, 2011 by Dominic M

[nb Innisfree]

Please don't take umbrage, Julynian, but that is an extraordinary contention about farmers. Firstly, they do pay duty on red diesel at the rate of just over 11p per litre at present. They have to account for their usage, so if they can't explain the disappearance of considerable quantities of their gasoil, they will be subject to an exhaustive investigation.

 

You may choose to believe that HMRC will never pursue some boat owners over their declarations, but I think that is very complacent. We may live in a country where you believe the burden of proof is on the investigator, but that is not the reality with tax and duty avoidance investigations. A person licensed as a continuous cruiser claiming 100% relief will almost certainly be hung out to dry, and I would have a fair bet that sooner or later, HMRC will make an example of some of them.

 

Please don't shoot the messenger!

 

And they will choose the one most likely to secure them a conviction, which will most likely be a blatant case of ignoring the rules, it's not a case of how much that ccer got away with, it's a drop in the ocean to HMRC, it will be an example to discourage thousands of other drops.

[Ex- Member]

Please don't take umbrage, Julynian, but that is an extraordinary contention about farmers. Firstly, they do pay duty on red diesel at the rate of just over 11p per litre at present. They have to account for their usage, so if they can't explain the disappearance of considerable quantities of their gasoil, they will be subject to an exhaustive investigation.

 

You may choose to believe that HMRC will never pursue some boat owners over their declarations, but I think that is very complacent. We may live in a country where you believe the burden of proof is on the investigator, but that is not the reality with tax and duty avoidance investigations. A person licensed as a continuous cruiser claiming 100% relief will almost certainly be hung out to dry, and I would have a fair bet that sooner or later, HMRC will make an example of some of them.

 

Please don't shoot the messenger!

 

Exactly what I stated

Farmers mostly pay no duty.

As I stated, who's to say that white diesel wasn't bought from a petrol station for propulsion.

[Ex- Member]

And they will choose the one most likely to secure them a conviction, which will most likely be a blatant case of ignoring the rules, it's not a case of how much that ccer got away with, it's a drop in the ocean to HMRC, it will be an example to discourage thousands of other drops.

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.

[mayalld]

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.

 

 

Yes, people have been deludng themselves about this since the start of the split.

 

Your calculation ignores the potential fines from the EU if HMRC don't make a bona fide attempt to police the system, and ignores the fact that the burden is on the boater to show that his declaration was reasonable. It is not on HMRC to prove that it was not.

[Dominic M]

Exactly what I stated

Farmers mostly pay no duty.

Without wishing to be pedantic what you meant was "Farmers pay less duty [than the ordinary motorist as they are entitled to use fully rebated red diesel on their farms]" At no point do they "mostly pay no duty". It was not at all clear from your post that you meant otherwise.

 

As I stated, who's to say that white diesel wasn't bought from a petrol station for propulsion.

They won't believe it, they will want to see jerry cans with no traces of red in them, they will prosecute, and the person will be convicted on the basis that it is "beyond reasonable doubt". And the reason for that will be because it is "beyond reasonable doubt." Going back to my hypothetical scenario above, I suspect the likely "example"targets will be those licensed as continuous cruisers who are only cruising over a small part of the system, yet also claiming 100% rebate on their fuel as the boat is their primary residence. The 9 mile pound on the K&A is an obvious one. Milton Keynes and its environs is another. And so on.

 

It is a perfectly reasonable position to say, "I don't believe this will ever happen." I wouldn't be so confident, personally.

[Blackrat]

I use the spreadsheet from the RBOA. It's loaded onto my netbook and I can show the seller the split at the till.

 

It's available from RBOA Website undr the Red Diesel tab. They only ask for a donation if you find it useful.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Blackrat

[Ex- Member]

Without wishing to be pedantic what you meant was "Farmers pay less duty [than the ordinary motorist as they are entitled to use fully rebated red diesel on their farms]" At no point do they "mostly pay no duty". It was not at all clear from your post that you meant otherwise.

 

 

They won't believe it, they will want to see jerry cans with no traces of red in them, they will prosecute, and the person will be convicted on the basis that it is "beyond reasonable doubt". And the reason for that will be because it is "beyond reasonable doubt." Going back to my hypothetical scenario above, I suspect the likely "example"targets will be those licensed as continuous cruisers who are only cruising over a small part of the system, yet also claiming 100% rebate on their fuel as the boat is their primary residence. The 9 mile pound on the K&A is an obvious one. Milton Keynes and its environs is another. And so on.

 

It is a perfectly reasonable position to say, "I don't believe this will ever happen." I wouldn't be so confident, personally.

 

 

No disrespect, but I think a bit of paranoia could be setting in here.

 

 

You don't have to use i jerry can for one fuel, not having a jerry can with only traces of white diesel in it is not proof of anything nor illegal, you can't prove a negative. You could have used the jerry for Red diesel after you collected your White for one example. No one could be prosecuted on such flimsy evidence. Also you are not obliged to keep records so if you don't, again there's no evidence of anything.

 

 

This is the point I'm trying to make, the rule or law with regard to this is basically un policable and IMO ulmost un prosecutable. The inland revenue in any court will need the same proponderance of evidence to convict as any other criminal case would. I grant though they have more powers to hand than police though in investigations, at the end of the day though the evidence has to be strong enough for the CPS to prosecute, or they get a confession.

 

I suppose only time will tell though, they might pick on me first who knows

[Tim]

Without wishing to be pedantic what you meant was "Farmers pay less duty [than the ordinary motorist as they are entitled to use fully rebated red diesel on their farms]" At no point do they "mostly pay no duty". It was not at all clear from your post that you meant otherwise.

 

 

They won't believe it, they will want to see jerry cans with no traces of red in them, they will prosecute, and the person will be convicted on the basis that it is "beyond reasonable doubt". And the reason for that will be because it is "beyond reasonable doubt." Going back to my hypothetical scenario above, I suspect the likely "example"targets will be those licensed as continuous cruisers who are only cruising over a small part of the system, yet also claiming 100% rebate on their fuel as the boat is their primary residence. The 9 mile pound on the K&A is an obvious one. Milton Keynes and its environs is another. And so on.

 

It is a perfectly reasonable position to say, "I don't believe this will ever happen." I wouldn't be so confident, personally.

 

Or as I do, keep my white diesel receipts should HMRC ever take an interest, but I too think this is unlikely.

[mayalld]

Exactly what I stated

Farmers mostly pay no duty.

 

Hmm.

 

Without wishing to take this thread off into deep discussions of English grammar (as with the Blogs thread);

 

Quite apart from the fact that it isn't good English, the obvious reading of that statement is that Most Farmers pay no duty.

 

It certainly doesn't mean "Farmers pay a significantly lower rate of duty".

[ditchcrawler]

Or as I do, keep my white diesel receipts should HMRC ever take an interest, but I too think this is unlikely.

And how would you prove that you put that diesel in your boat and not my car.

 

BTW anyone want to buy a pile of white diesel receipts, mainly Lowestoft area but some from Napton area and Cambridge.

[GUMPY]

This is the point I'm trying to make, the rule or law with regard to this is basically un policable and IMO ulmost un prosecutable. The inland revenue in any court will need the same proponderance of evidence to convict as any other criminal case would. I grant though they have more powers to hand than police though in investigations, at the end of the day though the evidence has to be strong enough for the CPS to prosecute, or they get a confession.

 

Nope it doesnt work that way

 

With HMRC you are guilty until you prove that you are innocent not the other way round..........

 

It doesnt matter anyway as we will all be using white diesel soon with no tax rebate.

Red will only be allowed if you have two tanks and then only for heating etc.

 

How will this be enforced the same way that I belive it was in France, raids on marinas with random checks being done on engine fuel filters.

White OK red you get fined and pay the back dutty, that simple

[n.b.Goldie]

Nope it doesnt work that way

 

With HMRC you are guilty until you prove that you are innocent not the other way round..........

 

It doesnt matter anyway as we will all be using white diesel soon with no tax rebate.

Red will only be allowed if you have two tanks and then only for heating etc.

 

How will this be enforced the same way that I belive it was in France, raids on marinas with random checks being done on engine fuel filters.

White OK red you get fined and pay the back dutty, that simple

 

How on earth was the changeover managed? There will be thousands of boats with tanks containing red, some boats will take years to use all the red in their tank and surely fuel lines, engines, tanks etc will be forever stained with red.

 

Regards

Ditchdabbler

[Ex- Member]

Nope it doesnt work that way

 

With HMRC you are guilty until you prove that you are innocent not the other way round..........

 

It doesnt matter anyway as we will all be using white diesel soon with no tax rebate.

Red will only be allowed if you have two tanks and then only for heating etc.

 

How will this be enforced the same way that I belive it was in France, raids on marinas with random checks being done on engine fuel filters.

White OK red you get fined and pay the back dutty, that simple

 

 

 

Outside of a court maybe, Ie if their investigating v.a.t -paye tax etc and where you're a business owner/director and obliged by law to keep records, then the onus is as you say on you to prove otherwise.

 

However a boater is not signed up to any tax agreement or arrangement with HMRC other than obeying the legislation laid down by law. If you break the law and are then prosecuted then anything that goes to court as has always has been in this country you are not guilty until proven otherwise.

[WotEver]

However a boater is not signed up to any tax agreement or arrangement with HMRC other than obeying the legislation laid down by law. If you break the law and are then prosecuted then anything that goes to court as has always has been in this country you are not guilty until proven otherwise.

I truly do not believe this is the case. With regard to personal taxation, the truth is that HMRC have the power to make their own guesses about your income and you have to prove them wrong. I see no reason why HMRC would take a different approach to alleged fraudulent VAT payments.

 

To give a silly example, I was telephoned by HMRC last year where they informed me that I had underpaid my income tax by some silly amount (£65 if I remember correctly) in the year 2005/6. I asked them to prove it and they simply said "That is what our records show." I sought professional advice and the accountant said "Just pay it, don't piss them off.". For all I know they were doing it to everyone - nice little earner!

 

Tony

[mayalld]

Outside of a court maybe, Ie if their investigating v.a.t -paye tax etc and where you're a business owner/director and obliged by law to keep records, then the onus is as you say on you to prove otherwise.

 

However a boater is not signed up to any tax agreement or arrangement with HMRC other than obeying the legislation laid down by law. If you break the law and are then prosecuted then anything that goes to court as has always has been in this country you are not guilty until proven otherwise.

 

That would be where you are wrong.

 

The starting position has been, since 1/11/08, that you cannot use rebated fuel for boat propulsion, and that you should use unrebated DERV.

 

However, in recognition of the fact that boats are usually fitted with a single tank which will now supply rebated and unrebated uses, and in recognition of the fact that conversion would be a disproportionate response, has created a scheme to allow the use of rebated oil, provided that the additional duty is actually paid on the propulsion element.

 

Effectively, as a boater, you can choose either white diesel, or you can choose red within the rules laid down. If you opt for Red, you are bound by the rules of the scheme, which incorporate civil penalties (i.e. with a balance of probabilities test).

[Ex- Member]

I truly do not believe this is the case. With regard to personal taxation, the truth is that HMRC have the power to make their own guesses about your income and you have to prove them wrong. I see no reason why HMRC would take a different approach to alleged fraudulent VAT payments.

 

To give a silly example, I was telephoned by HMRC last year where they informed me that I had underpaid my income tax by some silly amount (£65 if I remember correctly) in the year 2005/6. I asked them to prove it and they simply said "That is what our records show." I sought professional advice and the accountant said "Just pay it, don't piss them off.". For all I know they were doing it to everyone - nice little earner!

 

Tony

 

 

 

Well you're either on PAYE or self employed which is in effect a business, in running a business you are obliged to keep records, so if the tax man makes a demand you have to prove weather you pay it or not by providing some evidence. However if you're PAYE then your employer has to hold those records and you can use your wage slips to prove otherwise if you believe he's wrong.

 

If you are caught driving a car with red diesel in it you are prosecuted, the tax man can't make a demand on you in that instance, but can possibly claim what they might reasonably believe you've fiddled in duty once you,ve been prosecuted. The same applies to a boater.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Julynian

[n.b.Goldie]

I truly do not believe this is the case. With regard to personal taxation, the truth is that HMRC have the power to make their own guesses about your income and you have to prove them wrong. I see no reason why HMRC would take a different approach to alleged fraudulent VAT payments.

 

To give a silly example, I was telephoned by HMRC last year where they informed me that I had underpaid my income tax by some silly amount (£65 if I remember correctly) in the year 2005/6. I asked them to prove it and they simply said "That is what our records show." I sought professional advice and the accountant said "Just pay it, don't piss them off.". For all I know they were doing it to everyone - nice little earner!

 

Tony

 

Having recently checked my two P60s (1 employment, 1 company pension) for tax year 2010/11, I discovered that I paid £10.27 too much tax so and I kid you not, yesterday I sent a letter to Mr Tax Man requesting the return of tax overpaid. It might only be £10.27 but its mine! Hope I have not pissed them off too much!

 

Regards

Ditchdabbler

[WotEver]

... can possibly claim what they might reasonably believe you've fiddled in duty once you,ve been prosecuted.

Surely that's what I just said?

 

HMRC will state "You owe us £xxx in unpaid duty". You are then responsible for proving that their estimation is wrong.

 

In other words, guilty until proven inoocent.

 

It always used to be said "The Taxman just wants your money; the Vatman wants your blood." Now they're all the same thing, guess which way they ended up leaning?

 

Tony

 

Having recently checked my two P60s (1 employment, 1 company pension) for tax year 2010/11, I discovered that I paid £10.27 too much tax so and I kid you not, yesterday I sent a letter to Mr Tax Man requesting the return of tax overpaid. It might only be £10.27 but its mine! Hope I have not pissed them off too much!

 

Regards

Ditchdabbler

I do hope you also claimed interest just like they do when it's due in the other direction

 

Tony

[Ex- Member]

Surely that's what I just said?

 

HMRC will state "You owe us £xxx in unpaid duty". You are then responsible for proving that their estimation is wrong.

 

In other words, guilty until proven inoocent.

 

It always used to be said "The Taxman just wants your money; the Vatman wants your blood." Now they're all the same thing, guess which way they ended up leaning?

 

Tony

 

 

 

Read all the post Tony, maybe i didn't put it succinctly

 

If you are caught driving a car with red diesel in it you are prosecuted, the tax man can't make a demand on you in that instance,(I meant before prosecution) but can possibly claim what they might reasonably believe you've fiddled in duty once you,ve been prosecuted. The same applies to a boater.

 

ETA

 

The tax man cannot make a willy nilly claim even against a business, they have to back it up with something however spurious it might be. This is why we carry an insurance to cover accountants fees if we ever get in to debate, the accountants then require HMRC to show why they believe their owed money, the accountants then try to find proof that you don't. If you can't supply it you have to pay HMRC on their terms or appeal.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Julynian

[WotEver]

Yes, I read all that. Who do you suppose will prosecute you?

 

Here's the answer - HMRC will prosecute you.

 

Now when they prosecute you, guess what they will claim?

 

Here's the answer - whatever they determine you owe them.

 

With HMRC you are guilty until proven innocent.

 

Tony