Stop EU banning red diesel use for Narrowboats. sign UGov petition here

[Hawkmoth]

1. It is a vehicle that uses its propusion engine by products as domestic heat and electricity,just like a boat.

 

2. I won't keep repeating my answer just because you keep repeating the question.but Carl

But Carl, you haven't answered the question. Where do roads come into boating? It's 'road fuel duty'.

Bob

[carlt]

But Carl, you haven't answered the question. Where do roads come into boating? It's 'road fuel duty'.

Bob

I have answered your question.

 

It is not road fuel duty it is "vehicle propulsion" fuel duty.

 

Your vehicle uses fuel to propel it and heat and electricity are fortunate byproducts of its propulsion engine.

 

You choose to see it as "road fuel duty" yet I have provided one quote of many that describes it differently.

[Chris Pink]

It seems I'm missing something fundamental here.

Two tanks - Ok, but, my main engine must be run to charge my main battery bank and run the washer/dryer. If I'm moored up, which although we cruise a lot in summer, I'm using my main engine as a generator. If I have two tanks, one red one white, can I run my engine from the red because it's only charging? The answer is of course, no. So, I'm using white to charge my batteries.

There are are people in the tread who say tough, I've done it in my motorhome for X years. that's right, but you knew that and factored it in when you went in that direction.

Next, the reason we had red in our tanks was that in this country white was for road vehicles, it was part of the tax for use of the road. We don't use the roads!!

Now along come the !*$%^ Common Market/ EU and tries to extract more tax out of people.

Someone said on here that it wasn't the EU, but our government that did it. Yeessss but it was under duress. I see no logical argument for using road taxed diesel in our boats.

How about the scenario: I have a completely electric boat. No connection between the motor and the propellor, but I have a generator to charge the battery. Can I run it on red?

Bob

 

Aha, one of the right wing mob wanders into the room aftering lambasting NCCCCMCViXers for "getting away without paying their due" to argue for "getting away" without paying tax on their fuel by "exploiting a loophole" - you'll know the language better then I.

[Jerra]

It's 'road fuel duty'.

Bob

Could you please tell me where to look that up? I have just searched the HMRC site and nowhere did I find the phrase "road fuel duty" they seem to exclusively use the term "fuel duty".

[Chris Pink]

It's very very simple.

 

Either fit two tanks if you want to legally use lower duty fuel for domestic

 

or pay the duty and use the one tank.

 

That's (essentially) the law which will be enforced sooner or later.

 

You wouldn't mess around like that in France. You'd be sitting on the bank with a tax bill to pay in cash before you stepped back on your boat. I don't exaggerate.

[Hawkmoth]

I have answered your question.

 

It is not road fuel duty it is "vehicle propulsion" fuel duty.

 

Your vehicle uses fuel to propel it and heat and electricity are fortunate byproducts of its propulsion engine.

 

You choose to see it as "road fuel duty" yet I have provided one quote of many that describes it differently.

It isn't described by government as propulsion duty, but as road fuel duty.

 

Anyway, nice to have a sensible discussion, thanks, but it's time for bed.

Good night

Bob

[Chris Pink]

It isn't described by government as propulsion duty, but as road fuel duty.

 

 

This discussion isn't about road fuel duty, though you are right about the wording for the tax on road fuel.

 

It's about paying duty (at the same rate) for leisure boat propulsion. Perhaps you'd like to call it "leisure boat fuel duty"?

 

There's no loophole there. Sorry.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Chris Pink

[George Kennedy]

I don't get your point on this. Can you expand?

I already do go to a garage to get fuel in winter because I'm moored up for most of it. (live aboard) but I'm lucky enough to have a local son with car.

In summer it isn't really practical to hunt out garages, and a 20 ltr can won't go far.

If you buy red diesel at a filling station you buy it 'as is' with reduced duty, ideal for the winter time when one is static. In summer the diesel is for propulsion mainly anyway so if filling at a waterside location and one has to pay full duty, it makes it about right.

As for a 20 litre can going far enough, you're right but then there's no restriction on how many you can buy however I would advise against buying more than 80 litres of red diesel at a time from any location if you are paying reduced rate.

[Chris Pink]

I would advise against buying more than 80 litres of red diesel at a time from any location if you are paying reduced rate.

 

Don't people fill 205 litre drums?

 

We used to for the big generators.

[George Kennedy]

 

Don't people fill 205 litre drums?

 

We used to for the big generators.

It's about keeping a low profile really.

[Chris Pink]

It's about keeping a low profile really.

 

Exactly.

 

Theft by tax evasion is achieved by keeping a low profile.

 

I must admit Mr Kennedy, I've not seen you wading in the mob so I won't accuse you of hypocrisy like many on this thread. I have no problem if you want to defraud the government.

 

What does exercise me is the hypocrites who use the phrase 'something for nothing" when referring to someone else but expect 'something for nothing" to run their boats on.

[Doorman]

Indeed and, in my opinion, we should bring our propulsion fuel duty down to be in line with them.

But in reality that's never going to happen, at least not whilst there are people who are in favour of raising fuel duty on narrowboats!

 

Never have I witnessed people so enthusiastic in paying more tax. Is it any wonder consecutive British governments levy so much direct and indirect taxation on a population with so much acceptance and so little resistance.

[Higgs]

I'm in a minority of a minority and do not have a pleasure/leisure craft. As a liveaboard, I can not agree with the insistence that I should accept that my engine has the single purpose of propulsion. I could run the Mikuni on red diesel, but not without the batteries being charged, from the engine; gear box disengaged, not that I really care to make it a rule.

 

I have documents, informing me that I actually have a houseboat; the people that wish to class the boat as such are not going to allow me to argue the point. So, I just have to go along with it. Same thing here. I obviously only ever need hot etc, at only the times the engine is being used for propulsion. ...................and I can enjoy the 'by product'. CC'ers must have a really hard time, scheduling all their' domestic needs to their fortnightly departures, waiting for those 'by products'.

 

And for the 13 days inbetween, sit in the dark, no power to run the pumps to deliver water. Don't for goodness sakes use the bloody engine, it'll be classed as by products of propulsion.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Higgs

[Helga]

I assume hire boats are a commercial operation and therefore the hire base will be aable to legally fill their boats with red diesel? If so; then will the hire companies bother to have a separate wite diesel tank installed and at what price will they have to charge for the diesel to recover the capital cost? Or will there just be fewer outlets on the waterways selling white diesel.

 

But at the end of the day isn't this decision about tax revenue. The UK government currently doesn't seem to want to collect it so why is the EU pursuing the issue? I assume it's about "harmonising" the European tax system?

[alan_fincher]

I assume hire boats are a commercial operation and therefore the hire base will be aable to legally fill their boats with red diesel?

Your assumption is, I believe wrong!

[OldGoat]

I assume hire boats are a commercial operation and therefore the hire base will be aable to legally fill their boats with red diesel? If so; then will the hire companies bother to have a separate wite diesel tank installed and at what price will they have to charge for the diesel to recover the capital cost? Or will there just be fewer outlets on the waterways selling white diesel.

 

But at the end of the day isn't this decision about tax revenue. The UK government currently doesn't seem to want to collect it so why is the EU pursuing the issue? I assume it's about "harmonising" the European tax system?

 

In the beginning HMRC were minded to abolish the Red diesel concession completely. The as far as I could gather it was realised that many fuel suppliers would cease to bother as the profit on fuel is pretty marginal.

The spectre of folks then buying fuel in cans and the likelihood of wholesale contamination of our canals and rivers made HMRC think again. The resultant scheme follows the letter of the directive, but some continental countries object to GB doing what they do as normal.....

 

Some points to bear in mind:-

Folks buying Red in cans are breaking the law and so are the filling stations selling it - if they know it's going to be used in a boat. They need a separate licence to do that.

 

If boatyards did convert to selling road fuel, the price is likely to rise to £1.60 at current market prices - would you pay that? No; you'd buy it in cans from a filling station, limited to 20l at a time.

 

EU harmonisation was all about creating a "level field" across borders to avoid unfair competition between members. A (relatively) few inland boaters in the UK getting fuel slightly cheaper is hardly "across borders" and doesn't cause any distortion. Remember that we already pay excise duty at 11ppl plus VAT (albeit at a reduced rate) so it's not tax free.

[Hawkmoth]

 

Aha, one of the right wing mob wanders into the room aftering lambasting NCCCCMCViXers for "getting away without paying their due" to argue for "getting away" without paying tax on their fuel by "exploiting a loophole" - you'll know the language better then I.

Where do you get that from in my post?

You must be reading into it what you want to hear just for an argument.

Bob

 

This discussion isn't about road fuel duty, though you are right about the wording for the tax on road fuel.

 

It's about paying duty (at the same rate) for leisure boat propulsion. Perhaps you'd like to call it "leisure boat fuel duty"?

 

There's no loophole there. Sorry.

What are you on about? What loophole?

I don't want to call it anything.

I just don't think we should be paying 'road fuel duty' in our boats. There is no logical reason for it other than, it seems, to penalise leisure boating. The amount raised is paltry so what other reason could they want to tax it?

Bob

[Higgs]

From the HMRC site: In recognition of their status, residential boat owners, who's primary, or often their only, place of residence is their boat.

 

 

A sentence from a section that offers a reason why 100% of the fuel (red diesel for non propulsion) can be supplied at the reduced rate for declaration of the split. As things stand, it is possible to adjust the split proportions, within reason, the percentage that the buyer declares - propulsion/non-propulsion.

 

This only applies to red. I would hope that some recognition is afforded to residential boat owners in the future of any change in fuel colour, to which, Mayalid made references earlier - or, at least, to a split working similar to red.

 

If I do have to have another tank fitted, it will be a small one for white diesel. 40 litres. The red diesel tank will supply, at some point, a generator. Will be looking for a water cooled genny.. Presumably all red diesel will at that point be sold with no split necessary and at a reduced rate - if retailers put up with the hassle of stocking two colours, at all.

 

I'm assuming any change, if implemented, will be drawn out to allow adjustments for retailers.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Higgs

[Hawkmoth]

If you buy red diesel at a filling station you buy it 'as is' with reduced duty, ideal for the winter time when one is static. In summer the diesel is for propulsion mainly anyway so if filling at a waterside location and one has to pay full duty, it makes it about right.

As for a 20 litre can going far enough, you're right but then there's no restriction on how many you can buy however I would advise against buying more than 80 litres of red diesel at a time from any location if you are paying reduced rate.

In my case I use a fair bit generating. I admit we are a high user of electricity, which means we do have to generate a lot.

If we cruise one day, fine, maybe 3-4 hours, call it all propulsion. The next day we sit still, do a wash/dry load, which is another 3-4 hours of running the washing and recharging the batteries. That is a 50/50 split straight away.

Bob

[Henhouse]

To all the people who think there should only be one rate of tax on fuel.

 

 

I take it that you will extend your fairness and equality regime to income tax, and that we shall in future all pay at one standard rate.

[Hawkmoth]

 

 

What does exercise me is the hypocrites who use the phrase 'something for nothing" when referring to someone else but expect 'something for nothing" to run their boats on.

Is that aimed at me?

Bob

[GUMPY]

But Carl, you haven't answered the question. Where do roads come into boating? It's 'road fuel duty'.

Bob

No its not road fuel duty, just like the Road Fund Licence (car tax)it has been years since it was only used on roads.

Its just a tax, like many others, but levied on fuel used to propel modes of transport.

[Hawkmoth]

No its not road fuel duty, just like the Road Fund Licence (car tax)it has been years since it was only used on roads.

Its just a tax, like many others, but levied on fuel used to propel modes of transport.

Then why do they call it "ROAD FUEL DUTY?"

OK There are some out there who, I get the impression, feel that it's 'moral' to accede to this tax. I'm not one of them.

We, along with a great number of people who have leisure or, as in our case, liveaboard boats went into this expecting to use red diesel, without road fuel duty on it. It is taxed, but at a lower rate. This isn't 'getting away with it' this was the rule. Why should the rule/law be changed?

Is it to stop as 'getting away with it' in the eyes of some. To level the playing field? How about the corporations who seem to be getting away with it, the bankers, all those who can afford fancy accountants. We, the majority of boaters can't afford accountants so we're an easy target.

Most of us are law abiding citizens, we will, of course pay the tax if it comes. But I'm sure a lot will be forced off the cut, possibly us among them. I sure that will make some people happy.

Bob

[carlt]

 

Never have I witnessed people so enthusiastic in paying more tax. Is it any wonder consecutive British governments levy so much direct and indirect taxation on a population with so much acceptance and so little resistance.

It's not about paying more tax but about paying the fair amount of tax.

 

 

I would resist an increase in the level of vehicle fuel duty but honestly cannot see why boats should not pay the same as any other vehicle.

Then why do they call it "ROAD FUEL DUTY?"

 

They don't.

 

I have provided a quote (one of many I could have cited) where it is not called "Road fuel duty" so why do you persist in assuming otherwise (apart from the fact that it doesn't help your case if it is called something else).

[Hawkmoth]

It's not about paying more tax but about paying the fair amount of tax.

 

 

What would you call 'a fair amount of tax'?

If our government put fuel duty, as you like to call it, up to 1.50, that would be the same for everyone, so that's fair.

Bob