fuel tax declaration

[raymondh]

My none waterside dealer (it is not far from the canal) who sells in the 10,000s of litres per week, asks for name, address, use for fuel and car registration number

There is also a big sign saying they do not sell fuel for use in boats

They do however sell to marinas and fuel boats in the area

To me its all a nonsense just buy what you need and be honest in what you declare

Ray

PS

I only purchase Kerro from them, I buy my red wherever and declare as I think is appropriate

Edited January 17, 2016 by raymondh

[Chewbacka]

Chewbacka - "According to HMRC information you are not responsible if a customer wishes to declare 100% domestic so you can supply without penalty from HMRC, so long as you note this in your records." &"You are not responsible if a purchaser makes a false declaration."

 

However if you are aware that they are trying to cheat the tax man because you can see that the diesel is going into a tank supplying the engine; you could be prosecuted by HMRC for aiding and abbeting fraud - this is why we refused the declaration.

Stevec

I can only tell you what it says in the Notice issued by HMRC and that is that

"You are not responsible for ascertaining whether the fuel you sell to an individual is for the propulsion of a private pleasure craft; it is the purchaser’s responsibility to do so and to make a declaration to that effect."

and

"If a customer refuses to make a declaration (even a verbal statement that they are commercial), we would expect you to exercise your RDCO duty of care and refuse to supply the fuel until they indicate their status as commercial or private. If they say they are commercial, supply as above. If they insist they are private but unwilling to make a written declaration you should refuse to supply the fuel unless they do so.

You are not responsible if a purchaser makes a false declaration."

So you can supply if they claim they are commercial even if they do not appear to be and you can supply if they say they are private and make a declaration even if it is for 100% propulsion even if you think they are lying.

But as a supplier you are also free to refuse to sell to anyone you do not wish to.

I am not saying you were wrong to refuse to supply, but so long as you follow the rules I don't see how you would be at risk of prosecution even if you 'know' they are cheating the tax man.

Also the rules allow for a residential boater that moves only a short distance for fuel to declare 100% domestic and again the supplier is not responsible for checking the boaters status. I will not bore you with the details but section 4.7 in the notice is quite clear.

 

So as a supplier so long as you follow the rules I don't see that you have anything to worry about.

[Theo]

I don't quite understand how so many boaters declare 0% for propeller. I usually have to drive the boat there, just to get it! How can that possibly be 0% for propulsion?

If you are a liveaboard and the onl way that you can get to the elsan and the fule supplier is to take the boat and you do no other cruising then 0% propulsion is OK so I was told when this was at the top of everyone's mind.

[David Mack]

If you are a liveaboard and the onl way that you can get to the elsan and the fule supplier is to take the boat and you do no other cruising then 0% propulsion is OK so I was told when this was at the top of everyone's mind.

 

If you are a static liveaboard that never moves (and the fuel supplier comes to you) you can legitimately claim 100% domestic use. But even a short trip to the elsan or diesel pump is propulsion use, and you should strictly be declaring a very small proportion as propulsion use.

[nicknorman]

If you are a static liveaboard that never moves (and the fuel supplier comes to you) you can legitimately claim 100% domestic use. But even a short trip to the elsan or diesel pump is propulsion use, and you should strictly be declaring a very small proportion as propulsion use.

See post #77

 

Section 4.7:

 

We recognise that there are boat owners whose primary, or only, residence is their boat. Some of these will be at fixed moorings or move just a very short distance along the tow path from permanent moorings. If you live aboard your craft permanently and hold certain documentation, such as a Houseboat Licence, Residential Mooring Licence, Council Tax bill in respect of the mooring, or other documentation, such as invoices or bills which provide proof of permanent residency, you may purchase all your fuel at the rebated rate (as if you owned a commercial vessel). You are not required to make a declaration.

 

However, it will be your responsibility to ensure that you hold the requisite documentation should we wish to check this at a future date.

Edited January 17, 2016 by nicknorman

[David Mack]

If that way is your way excellent. Others have different views.

Is it your view that I am at present having to use deisel from a garage at full duty and should not in the future adjust my declaration to make up my loss.

 

Yes it is my view, that according to the letter of the requirements you should not be adjusting your percentage propulsion to rectify a previous over-declaration.

 

That is the theory. The practice is completely different. The supplier is not responsible for the correctness of the purchaser's declaration. The purchaser is not required to keep any records. So if HMRC ever wanted to investigate any alleged deliberate underpayment by a particular boater, they would have to collate records of that boater's fuel purchases from a potentially large range of fuel suppliers, (including 100% propulsion purchases from garages), and then compare the declarations with whatever evidence they can find as to the boater's actual propulsion/non-propulsion use. So in practice, just not at all likley to happen.

 

The whole relaxed regime we have seems to be a specific recognition that HMRC just don't want to get involved in the whole business any more than they have to. The British Government was opposed to the charging of duty on leisure use of fuel, and thought it would bring in minimal revenue. They only did so when forced to by the EU. So it is perhaps not surprising that Government has introduced a regime where the duty cannot readily be enforced.

Edited January 17, 2016 by David Mack

[valrene9600]

Excellent. Hopefully everyone will get on with boating and stop worrying about the tax man.

[Bewildered]

If the engine has to be run for 3 hours a day to charge the batteries and you happen to cruise at the same time, would you need to declare propulsion as you were in fact nescessarily charging your batteries?

It seems stupid not to kill two birds with one stone when you can

[bottle]

Ah, yes but no but

 

You are still using a percentage for each, charging the batteries (alternator load) engine (prop load), heating the calorifier and of course waste heat but that is disregarded for tax purposes.

[furnessvale]

The whole relaxed regime we have seems to be a specific recognition that HMRC just don't want to get involved in the whole business any more than they have to. The British Government was opposed to the charging of duty on leisure use of fuel, and thought it would bring in minimal revenue. They only did so when forced to by the EU. So it is perhaps not surprising that Government has introduced a regime where the duty cannot readily be enforced.

This appears to be one of the few occasions that the UK has done the European thing and ignored EU directives it doesn't like as much as possible.

 

The EU and other countries, e.g. Belgium, do not like this one bit.

 

The best thing UK boaters can do is keep their heads down and try not to rock the boat (excuse the pun).

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Paul C]

If the engine has to be run for 3 hours a day to charge the batteries and you happen to cruise at the same time, would you need to declare propulsion as you were in fact nescessarily charging your batteries?

It seems stupid not to kill two birds with one stone when you can

 

Yes BUT you can reflect that some of the engine's power goes to propulsion, and some goes to battery charging (and some goes to other stuff too - eg water heating if a calorifier is fitted) and that element of the use doesn't need to be 100% propulsion.

[Bewildered]

 

Yes BUT you can reflect that some of the engine's power goes to propulsion, and some goes to battery charging (and some goes to other stuff too - eg water heating if a calorifier is fitted) and that element of the use doesn't need to be 100% propulsion.

 

So the engine uses a certain amount of fuel on tick over to charge the batteries; which I assume to be rated at 0%

 

If the drive is engaged and the revs pushed up to drive the prop, the batteries will also charge at a faster rate; but how would the calculation be made to work out what percentage of additional fuel is used to drive the prop?

 

one could presumably argue that the engine needs to be run to charge the batteries and the drive is using power from that practice rather than let it go to waste and see if the tax man can understand the mechanics of it all

Although with my luck I will get a tax inspector with an advanced engineering degree

 

It seems that these rules assume that the fuel is used for propulsion and an allowance is made for heating etc.

I would argue that depending on your boating life style that the fuel could be used for heating and charging and the allowance should therefore be made for the occasional bit of cruising

[cuthound]

Why do you need to engage the prop to increase the revs?

 

All the boats I have seen either have a morse type control orva speedwheel and gear lever. Both types allow the engine speed to be controlled when in neutral.

[Paul C]

 

So the engine uses a certain amount of fuel on tick over to charge the batteries; which I assume to be rated at 0%

 

If the drive is engaged and the revs pushed up to drive the prop, the batteries will also charge at a faster rate; but how would the calculation be made to work out what percentage of additional fuel is used to drive the prop?

 

one could presumably argue that the engine needs to be run to charge the batteries and the drive is using power from that practice rather than let it go to waste and see if the tax man can understand the mechanics of it all

Although with my luck I will get a tax inspector with an advanced engineering degree

 

It seems that these rules assume that the fuel is used for propulsion and an allowance is made for heating etc.

I would argue that depending on your boating life style that the fuel could be used for heating and charging and the allowance should therefore be made for the occasional bit of cruising

 

Given that you don't need to keep receipts and HMRC basically aren't interested, all you need to do is satisfy yourself that your declaration is morally okay. And if you're going to publicise it on an internet forum, be able to justify it to the extent of those who take an interest in the forum!!! I suppose technically, you'd realise that the total "energy" from the fuel is say 20% towards actually turning the crank, of which there's a bunch of inefficiencies before it gets to the alternator resulting in some power made into electricity; and a bunch of inefficiencies before it spins the propellor too. And (say) 25% of the fuel's energy goes towards heating eg calorifier and interior if you have engine-coolant radiators on the boat. And 50% invariably goes out the exhaust as hot combustion products.....

 

You could work it out to the nth degree as a technical exercise but personally I'd just reflect that some is for propulsion and some isn't, eg in summertime declare 20/80 and winter time declare 10/90 or something like that?

[valrene9600]

 

So the engine uses a certain amount of fuel on tick over to charge the batteries; which I assume to be rated at 0%

 

If the drive is engaged and the revs pushed up to drive the prop, the batteries will also charge at a faster rate; but how would the calculation be made to work out what percentage of additional fuel is used to drive the prop?

 

one could presumably argue that the engine needs to be run to charge the batteries and the drive is using power from that practice rather than let it go to waste and see if the tax man can understand the mechanics of it all

Although with my luck I will get a tax inspector with an advanced engineering degree

 

It seems that these rules assume that the fuel is used for propulsion and an allowance is made for heating etc.

I would argue that depending on your boating life style that the fuel could be used for heating and charging and the allowance should therefore be made for the occasional bit of cruising

Just fill it with the cheapest you can find and get on with boating. When you need to charge start the engine, when cruising just put it in gear and don`t worry about the why`s and what nots. Life is to short.

[ditchcrawler]

 

So the engine uses a certain amount of fuel on tick over to charge the batteries; which I assume to be rated at 0%

 

If the drive is engaged and the revs pushed up to drive the prop, the batteries will also charge at a faster rate; but how would the calculation be made to work out what percentage of additional fuel is used to drive the prop?

 

one could presumably argue that the engine needs to be run to charge the batteries and the drive is using power from that practice rather than let it go to waste and see if the tax man can understand the mechanics of it all

Although with my luck I will get a tax inspector with an advanced engineering degree

 

It seems that these rules assume that the fuel is used for propulsion and an allowance is made for heating etc.

I would argue that depending on your boating life style that the fuel could be used for heating and charging and the allowance should therefore be made for the occasional bit of cruising

Just declare what you are happy with

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

It seems that these rules assume that the fuel is used for propulsion and an allowance is made for heating etc.

 

 

It could be that the 'thinking' is that boats are designed to move about, and, as a by-product of that you get electricity and hot water., hence the 60/40 suggested split.

 

For CMers, or non moving Marina/Online mooring liveaboards, the situation is reversed hence the capability to claim 0/100 if you can provide the necessary evidence.

Maybe its like CCing - It depends if you are moving because you want to, or moving because you need to

[jonesthenuke]

Just a thought, but I have the perception that the behaviour in marinas changes from summer to winter. In the summer I always seem to be asked for a declaration. This weekend the seller assumed I wanted 100% domestic. When I asked if he wanted me to sign a declaration I was told that it was fine without. This was for approx 50 litres in drums,but I also get fuel in drums in the summer and then I always have to declare.

 

Is there an implied assumption that in the winter more people are static and effectively the 100% domestic is appropriate? Do others find this?

[zenataomm]

These discussions about what - how much - % etc. are now all redundant.

I saw this at Braunston yesterday ......

 

 

Interestingly they still require you to make a declaration, although they don't call it a Self Declaration, it's still up to you.

Hmmmm ?!

 

[ditchcrawler]

2 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

These discussions about what - how much - % etc. are now all redundant.

I saw this at Braunston yesterday ......

 

 

Interestingly they still require you to make a declaration, although they don't call it a Self Declaration, it's still up to you.

Hmmmm ?!

 

If you don't like their terms don't do business with them.Its been like that ever since the  duty on red came in.

[dogless]

Mr Coghlan has been consistent with his interpretation.  He has stuck to the 60/40 split throughout, which is why I and many others decline to purchase diesel there.

Interestingly I have found that the further south I have travelled down the GU the system of charging and declaration seems to change. Many sell at 100% domestic unless your purchase is over 100 litres.

Life's too short to worry about such matters.

Rog

[nicknorman]

Apart from anything else, £1.11 is pretty close to the price paid in a garage forecourt for 100% propulsion. We just filled up at Norbury, 59p domestic. And Wheaton Aston was 57p.

[Mal in Somerset]

1 hour ago, zenataomm said:

These discussions about what - how much - % etc. are now all redundant.

I saw this at Braunston yesterday ......

 

 

Interestingly they still require you to make a declaration, although they don't call it a Self Declaration, it's still up to you.

Hmmmm ?!

 

The regulations state that the seller MAY use the 60/40 split on all sales for ease of administration (If all sales are done at this rate they can be combined on the return, however if different splits are used each sale has to be individually included when preparing the return to HMRC). However the regulations go on to say the purchaser MUST declare if the actual spilt is different from that used. These declarations and other self-declarations are then held by the sellers. Presumably if HMRC wanted to do a detailed check into an individual, they could ensure that their self-declarations are consistent, even if they had filled up at a supplier who uses the 60/40 split.

 

Edited June 15, 2017 by Mal in Somerset

[zenataomm]

I just filled up my car with full fat for £1.15 ltr.

No faff no fuss, no need to sign who I was, where I lived or my registration.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

Apart from anything else, £1.11 is pretty close to the price paid in a garage forecourt for 100% propulsion. We just filled up at Norbury, 59p domestic. And Wheaton Aston was 57p.

Still a lot better than the Thames where its a lot more than forecourt price.