Boat and butty

[david and julie]

I've put this here for a chat I don't intend doing it!

 

I'm looking for a new 70ft narrowboat and have the recent VAT rulings in mind.

 

My theoretical boat would be max butty and min boat for cheaper licence, lets say 55ft and 15ft. However my boat is unusual in that the butty is being pushed.

 

So we have a 55ft front butty, fully kitted out for proper comfort with gennie etc but no drive and no way of fitting it. It also as a squared off stern. My powered boat has a squared of bow which temporarily fastens to my butty in a way which is almost unnoticable and is in effect one boat, but it can be disconnected if need be.

 

So my questions are. Would the VAT on the butty be reclaimable as it is clearly an unpowered houseboat(weight aside?) what licence would you pay and would the butty part be subject BSS checks? Also as an aside can I carry on using gas oil in my butty if (when) derogation ends?

[John Orentas]

There used to be people with interesting boat combinations, there was a chap up here who had a 30ft tug and a 40ft butty. When on his own he would buzz around in the tug, it had accommodation for one, he could wind it and moor it almost anywhere. When wife and kids were there it he would take the butty along. The pair would fit into locks together so he believed he had the best of both worlds.

 

Things are a bit boring these days, everyones boats look the same and the owners spend their days agonising over what make of central heating is the best and will the television work while they explore extremities of the Grand Union.

 

Even more sad, It used to be said of posh cars "If you have to ask the price you can't afford it". Now when people discuss an interesting and daring project, the price of fuel, and wether Vat would be payable, in some way becomes a determining factor. Who cares.

Edited January 30, 2005 by John Orentas

[maffi mushkila]

So my questions are. Would the VAT on the butty be reclaimable as it is clearly an unpowered houseboat(weight aside?)

 

I don't quite see how you could claim it is an unpowered houseboat if it is specifically designed to 'clip on' to what would be an engine unit.

 

I think the rules say something like "and no way of fitting an engine" it could be argued that this was a way of fitting an engine, more especially if you owned both boats.

 

Good idea but maybe the C&E might think you are trying to avoid tax.

[DHutch]

Good idea but maybe the C&E might think you are trying to avoid tax.

 

Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

 

daniel

[david and julie]

there was a chap up here who had a 30ft tug and a 40ft butty. When on his own he would buzz around in the tug, it had accommodation for one,

 

Sounds good idea that John for all the reasons you gave plus perfect for the old silent treatment days.

 

Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is a no no. What if I my watertank was at the rear of the hull on the butty. In the place normally occupied by the engine?

[Gary Peacock]

Hi all

 

The VAT man does not want any boat to be zero rated if you read Notice 701/20 Caravans and houseboats. You will find this quote "It is unlikely that a vessel such as a barge or a yacht would be regarded as a houseboat for the purposes of VAT because they are likely to lend themselves to being readily adapted.

 

This smells of a similar situation with qualifying vessels, they offer little or no guidance and then interpret the rules to suit their means.

 

Gary

Edited January 31, 2005 by Gary Peacock

[maffi mushkila]

Sounds good idea that John for all the reasons you gave plus perfect for the old silent treatment days.

 

What if I my watertank was at the rear of the hull on the butty. In the place normally occupied by the engine?

 

But in the instance you quote the engine is outside the extremities of the butty because it will be designed to 'clip' on to the engine unit. I'm sure the idea is a good one but if you design the boat specifically to attach to an engine unit then you can't really say it has no means of propulsion. And if you own both the butty and the engine unit I think you may have a hard time convincing HMC&E that you have two boats, they may view it as rather one boat that breaks in the middle. If you go chugging up and down the canal with it you can hardly say it has no means of propulsion.

 

But then again HMC&E might smile and say "OK you did it!

[stuart]

...it will be designed to 'clip' on to the engine unit....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Would they just class this as an "outboard" engine?

[DHutch]

And if you own both the butty and the engine unit ...

 

Could you find helpfull relative who could own one of the half for you?

 

daniel

[Jon]

This is an interesting topic, and I think it warrants inclusion in the Gerneral Discussion forum, so am moving there.

 

Cheers

 

Jon

[david and julie]

if you design the boat specifically to attach to an engine unit then you can't really say it has no means of propulsion.

 

But Maffi it hasn't got its own means of propulsion. My pushing boat(tug?) also has an inboard diesel, so can't really be classed as an outboard.

 

Imagine a commercial vehicle tractor unit and trailer. An empty trailer also can't drive on it's own. Whilst the tractor unit (lorry) clearly doesn't belong to any particular trailer either. So why should my tug belong to my butty, when they are 2 different vessels?

[John Orentas]

Why a push-tug combination, they are awkward to physically connect and not as convenient to drive. A conventional tug and butty setup would be better all round, nobody could then claim they were two parts of one item. But never mind that are we looking for a good boat design or are we looking at tax avoidance or evasion scheme.

 

The former would interest me, the latter bores me to death.

[david and julie]

My first thought was if you pushed something rather than pulled it,the connection between the two could be lighter and simpler. My second was that a house boat wouldn't need any steering gear, so this would be better on my tug at the back.

 

I know tax may be boring but if my budget was say £100K incl.vat. I could reclaim around £15K which would pay for my tug or give me a better boat.

 

Or you could put the £15K in your back pocket and just feel partly bored if you like.

[John Orentas]

The only advantage of a push tug is that you don't need a second steerer, you do however need a more complex coupling between the two boats to keep a linear alignment.

[pog]

I know of someone on the K&A with just this kind of setup. The rear engine boat is also a workshop. As the owner is an engineer I assume he did the bulk of the design himself.

Google for "narrowboat + emily + bronte"

Engine= bronte

butty= emily

The way it is coupled together it looks as if it would behave in the same manner as a single, longer NB.

[ChrisPy]

Why a push-tug combination, they are awkward to physically connect and not as convenient to drive.  A conventional tug and butty setup would be better all round, nobody could then claim they were two parts of one item.  But never mind that are we looking for a good boat design or are we looking at tax avoidance or evasion scheme.

 

The former would interest me, the latter bores me to death.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if the joint was designed as a pivot (flat back to the butty, pointed stem locking into a socket in the butty stern), the steering from a push 'tug' could be very effective. ............ too effective, it would actually be very sensitive.

[Alastair]

I like the idea for practicality - you could build a combination that will fit through any lock in the UK system, only occasionally needing disconnecting for the shorter locks.

 

I don't see that the butty would need a flat back. A central pivot, locking to the tug, then one connection down each side would work. Just make it so the connection can flex vertically but not side-to-side.

 

Red diesel will be usable for power generation after derogation. So you could have it in your butty. Bulk deliveries usually require 500ltr, so design a 600ltr tank into your butty and you are quids in. May as well have diesel heating as well.

 

Sounds better and better, could be a really nice combo. Particularly if the 'tug' had trad design sloping sides etc.

[Gary Peacock]

Hi all

 

All this talk is making me interested!

If we could clarify the VAT issues I could be tempted to think seriously about building this beast!

It could make the ideal hotel boat too.

 

 

Gary

[Amicus]

Iffen you went for the pusher variant you could articulate the beast and steer it like a dump truck

[maffi mushkila]

The only advantage of a push tug is that you don't need a second steerer, you do however need a more complex coupling between the two boats to keep a linear alignment.

 

 

Disagree John It could be as simple as a couple of 'eyes' and a tapered drop bolt.

 

 

PS Did you get the pics

[maffi mushkila]

Hi all

 

All this talk is making me interested!

If we could clarify the VAT issues I could be tempted to think seriously about building this beast!

It could make the ideal hotel boat too.

Gary

 

Are you serious?

[John Orentas]

Not as simple as a piece of rope!

[Gary Peacock]

Are you serious?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes we could build one.

Obviously we would need to find some one who wants it first but the idea does seem to make sense.

We quite often get asked to quote for "dumb" boats with no engine or steering so the only slightly complex bit would be the connection, but maybe that might be better kept low tech rather than some hydraulically articulated set up.

 

Gary

[ChrisPy]

Yes we could build one.

Obviously we would need to find some one who wants it first but the idea does seem to make sense.

We quite often get asked to quote for "dumb" boats with no engine or steering so the only slightly complex bit would be the connection, but maybe that might be better kept low tech rather than some hydraulically articulated set up.

 

Gary

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess one of the principles to be sorted is would the tug steer by rudder, or would the combination joint angle be adjusted by wires from a steering wheel on the tug (in effect the tug is the rudder)?

[Alastair]

K.I.S.S.

 

Just use standard rudder steering. The combination won't be any longer than the larger narrowboats, anyway.