sh!t fuel - ghastly price

[mayalld]

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.

 

OK, you are wrong.

 

Evasion of duty can be dealt with as a civil penalty matter, based upon being "assessed" for unpaid duty. No prosecution is needed, and HMRC can reclaim any unpaid duty that they assess, together with a penalty of £250 (or 5% of the avoided duty if greater)..

[Ex- Member]

There are different penalties that HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) officers can issue for fraudulent paperwork or evading duty and VAT.

 

HMRC will not normally prosecute in the criminal courts

where a person has been invited to co-operate with their investigation[/quote], but they reserve

the right to do so.

 

 

[WotEver]

HMRC don't like taking people to court because that costs them money. If you got sent to prison that costs them even more money. (It was actually a tax inspector that pointed this out to me many years ago.) They still will if you refuse to co-operate though.

 

Quite apart from all that, it still comes down to the fact that if they say you owe them some money the onus it upon you to disprove that assertion. Guilty until proven innocent.

 

Tony

Edited August 24, 2011 by WotEver

[Ex- Member]

HMRC don't like taking people to court because that costs them money. If you got sent to prison that costs them even more money. (It was actually a tax inspector that pointed this out to me many years ago.) They still will if you refuse to co-operate though.

 

Quite apart from all that, it still comes down to the fact that if they say you owe them some money the onus it upon you to disprove that assertion. Guilty until proven innocent.

 

Tony

 

 

They have to be able to back up any claim they make with reasonable evidence though Tony, they might not in the first instance let you know exactly what they are demanding any monies for, and as they stated to you ((That is what our records show) as they will often be waiting for the paperwork that either proves their information right or wrong. I narrowly avoided a tribunal some years ago but managed to get the vital paperwork needed to settle the matter which explained away the anomolies, their claims were forwarded to my accountant once my accounts had been submitted.

 

You are right in a way though as by them not divulging the exact details of their claim, they very much have the upper hand. If I had not attended the tribunal or paid their demands I would have been prosecuted for tax evasion as was Ken Dodd a Mr. Piggot

 

My main point again though is they cannot inflict this on a boater, their civil actions are against all sorts from large companies to small traders registerring as a business and for v.a.t inport export etc.

 

People who smuggle tobacco evade customs and excise, they are individuals and are prosecuted for smuggling, and not harranged by HMRC demanding money priot to that.

[WotEver]

I think we're in danger of dancing on a pin head here. You've effectively agreed with me that the onus was on you to disprove their claim, which was the point I was originally attempting to make - guilty until proved innocent.

 

Now with regard to the fact that they have never yet challenged a boater for his 'split' claim I disagree that this is because they "cannot". Rather, I would suggest that it's because they have larger claims to pursue, and it would be a lot of hassle for them. I am quite sure that if they really wanted to do so they would have all the power they need to so do. With HMRC being instructed by the treasury to pursue all claims, no matter how trivial, I also suspect that it's simply a matter of (not much) time before one of us is proven right.

 

Cheers,

Tony

[ditchcrawler]

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

A bit of info here

[mayalld]

My main point again though is they cannot inflict this on a boater, their civil actions are against all sorts from large companies to small traders registerring as a business and for v.a.t inport export etc.

 

And your main point remains utterly, utterly wrong.

 

They absolutely CAN make an assessment, and impose a civil penalty on a private boater.

 

You can stick your fingers in your ears, and say "la la la la, not listening" if you wish, but they can do it, and I wouldn't be surprised if they do so just to prove it.

[Ex- Member]

I think we're in danger of dancing on a pin head here.

You've effectively agreed with me that the onus was on you to disprove their claim,

which was the point I was originally attempting to make - guilty until proved innocent.

 

Yes if you're registered as a business for v.a.t etc. you are required by law to keep records. Please read all of my posts, not selected isolated portions that suite your argument.

 

Individual boaters are not required to keep records. They have no arrangement with HMRC unlike business owners directors importers exporters ect so not liable for the HMRC process of civil claim.

 

Now with regard to the fact that they have never yet challenged a boater for his 'split' claim I disagree that this is because they "cannot". Rather, I would suggest that it's because they have larger claims to pursue, and it would be a lot of hassle for them. I am quite sure that if they really wanted to do so they would have all the power they need to so do. With HMRC being instructed by the treasury to pursue all claims, no matter how trivial, I also suspect that it's simply a matter of (not much) time before one of us is proven right.

 

Cheers,

Tony

 

 

 

As I stated earlier, we'll see

 

 

[nb Innisfree]

Just caught up with this thread.

 

My point about the possibility of ccers being prosecuted is that HMRC won't have to prove an incorrect split was declared as this is very difficult for them to do. They will do it on the principle that they have broken the clearly stated rule that ccers cannot claim 100% tax free, they won't go for the ones who have made the odd claim or two, (we inadvertently declared 100% just the once) but they will look for the worst case abuse of 100% claims and use that as an example of their ability to prosecute those who have broken that particular rule.

 

I have met ccers who have bought fuel at 100% claiming that as the supplier only does 100% then it's ok, i.e. it's not my problem, also arguing the finer points and reasoning that that is good enough to fend off HMRC.

 

I suspect there are quite a number of naive and easy targets out there to pick from

Edited August 25, 2011 by nb Innisfree

[sebrof]

HMRC don't like taking people to court because that costs them money. If you got sent to prison that costs them even more money. (It was actually a tax inspector that pointed this out to me many years ago.) They still will if you refuse to co-operate though.

 

Quite apart from all that, it still comes down to the fact that if they say you owe them some money the onus it upon you to disprove that assertion. Guilty until proven innocent.

 

Tony

 

No, Tone. You are not guilty until you have been found guilty by a court of law.

[Gibbo]

No, Tone. You are not guilty until you have been found guilty by a court of law.

 

In the case of HMRC I think you will find that you are not innocent until you have been found innocent in a court of law. Everyone who has ever had any dealings with them knows this.

[WotEver]

In the case of HMRC I think you will find that you are not innocent until you have been found innocent in a court of law. Everyone who has ever had any dealings with them knows this.

Absolutely.

 

Tony

 

I see the troll is back again.

[sebrof]

Absolutely.

 

Tony

 

I see the troll is back again.

 

Gibbo and Tone.

 

Batteryman and Robin.

[Ex- Member]

Absolutely.

 

Tony

 

I see the troll is back again.

 

 

 

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/declaration/11.asp

 

 

 

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed.

 

 

PLAIN LANGUAGE VERSION:

You should be considered innocent until it can be proved that you are guilty. If you are accused of a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself. Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done.

[Tim]

I think you'll find HMRC have powers way beyond those of the police. I believe they don't even need a warrant to enter premisis.

[Ex- Member]

I think you'll find HMRC have powers way beyond those of the police. I believe they don't even need a warrant to enter premisis.

 

those are the powers of investigation NOT prosecution, a completely different issue.

 

 

 

[Gibbo]

those are the powers of investigation NOT prosecution, a completely different issue.

 

Seriously, you need to get some experience of the powers HMRC have to be able to comment on this.

 

It's all well and good saying "But this is the UK, we are innocent until proven otherwise". The reality is that if HMRC say to a court you are guilty, then the courts will accept that you are guilty until you prove otherwise.

 

Honest, it's just the way it is. Whether you like/believe it or not.

 

Gibbo and Tone.

 

Batteryman and Robin.

 

You really are a helmet aren't you.

[sebrof]

Seriously, you need to get some experience of the powers HMRC have to be able to comment on this.

 

It's all well and good saying "But this is the UK, we are innocent until proven otherwise". The reality is that if HMRC say to a court you are guilty, then the courts will accept that you are guilty until you prove otherwise.

 

That is not the reality. HMRC certainly have enormous powers when it comes to entering premises, etc., but in a court of law they are just like anybody else.

[mayalld]

those are the powers of investigation NOT prosecution, a completely different issue.

 

 

 

 

Indeed so.

 

However, you are becoming fixated on criminal prosecutions.

 

Quite apart from criminal prosecutions, much tax law centres around administrative penalties.

 

When it comes to underpaying duty, they can "assess" you, and charge you the underpaid duty, along with a penalty for underpayment. Such penalties are not fines, and do not require guilt to be established.

[David Schweizer]

[Ex- Member]

Seriously, you need to get some experience of the powers HMRC have to be able to comment on this.

 

It's all well and good saying "But this is the UK, we are innocent until proven otherwise". The reality is that if HMRC say to a court you are guilty, then the courts will accept that you are guilty until you prove otherwise.

 

Honest, it's just the way it is. Whether you like/believe it or not.

 

 

 

You really are a helmet aren't you.

 

 

The reality is that if HMRC say to a court you are guilty, then the courts will accept that you are guilty until you prove otherwise.

What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. Judges and juries decide guilt not HMRC or anyone else.

Honest, it's just the way it is. Whether you like/believe it or not.

 

Are you living in the U'K by the way?

 

 

This presumption of innocence does not actually appear in Magna Carta.

Rather it is that a presumption of innocence exists until such time as the burden of proof or a jury of their peers decides otherwise.

 

This presumption has in fact been enshrined in law in some countries but others take it as read

 

The EU has put it in one of the conventions so in that respect all EU countries have it in their law as all EU countries abide by this convention.

 

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 6 – Right to a fair trial

 

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
   1. to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
   2. to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
   3. to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
   4. to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
   5. to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

ETA

 

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/005.htm

Edited August 25, 2011 by Julynian

[Gibbo]

What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make.

 

Go and have a fight with HMRC in a court. It might be ridiculous, but it is indeed the truth.

 

Judges and juries decide guilt not HMRC or anyone else.

 

Read, carefully, what I actually wrote. Not what you want me to have written.

[mayalld]

Judges and juries decide guilt not HMRC or anyone else.

 

Indeed they do.

 

However, save for the most blatant cases of fraud, HMRC are quite content to simply levy a large administrative penalty, and not worry about actually having somebody declared to be guilty.

 

At some point, some boater is going to find himself landed with an assessment for underpaid duty, £250 penalty on top and £20 per day until it is paid back.

 

That doesn't need a court, and it isn't a question of guilt, simply a matter of HMRC deciding that you haven't paid all the duty that you should have.

[Gibbo]

"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty

 

You're fixated on this "criminal offence"

 

Mostly HMRC don't go for criminal prosecution. They simply make it clear that unless you play by their rules, they will rip your business/personal life apart until you give in or go bankrupt.

 

Your business will fail because you and all your staff will be completely tied up filling forms in and making statements and will have no time to actually earn any money. It is what happens. I have seen it many times.

 

ETA: Honest, I've seen it.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Gibbo

[Ex- Member]

Go and have a fight with HMRC in a court. It might be ridiculous, but it is indeed the truth.

 

 

 

Read, carefully, what I actually wrote. Not what you want me to have written.

 

 

Really

 

You wrote

The reality is that if HMRC say to a court you are guilty, then the courts will accept that you are guilty until you prove otherwise.

 

 

 

You're fixated on this "criminal offence"

 

Mostly HMRC don't go for criminal prosecution. They simply make it clear that unless you play by their rules, they will rip your business/personal life apart until you give in or go bankrupt.

 

Your business will fail because you and all your staff will be completely tied up filling forms in and making statements and will have no time to actually earn any money. It is what happens. I have seen it many times.

 

ETA: Honest, I've seen it.

 

 

Read the answers I gave earlier'