Red diesel

[david and julie]

 

Is it just me or have these lengthy topics become harder to follow in the new format?

[carlt]

 

Is it just me or have these lengthy topics become harder to follow in the new format?

What new format? Have I missed an upgrade?

[adam1uk]

What new format? Have I missed an upgrade?

 

I'm glad it's not just me! I'm in sleep-deprived, getting-over-nightshift mode, but even so I think I'd have noticed a new format. And I haven't.

[mayalld]

Is this not merely speculation and, from the number of people on just this forum who think it ok to dodge this particular tax, but a mortal sin to dodge others, I don't think it will be very long before mr. tax collector sews up a few loopholes.

 

Just to clarify a couple of points;

 

1) I don't think it's OK to dodge this tax, and have no intention of doing so (even though I disagree with its imposition). That doesn't stop me from passing comment on how trivially easy it will be for people to dodge it.

2) It isn't speculation as such. It is based upon an assumption that HMRC's preferred option is implemented as set out in the discussion document.

[saltysplash]

I'm not sure I've seen anyone saying it would be OK to dodge the tax. I do think, however, that there won't be a huge effort on the part of HMRC to enforce it. They'll probably try to make an example of a couple of people, probably retailers, but they've got much bigger fish to fry.

 

Bigger fish to fry, the fatal thought of many a tax evader.

 

We all know the police have far more important things to do, so why are people still being stopped and stuck on for no seat belt?

Why do the DOT still do roadside checks for dangerous condition and no operators licence?

Why do C&E still do random stops on heavies and dip their fuel tanks looking for red diesel?

Why do DSS do roadside checks on cabbies looking for benefit fraud?

 

Mark my word chums, It will happen, people will be stopped at hot spots on the cut or at selected marinas and have their tanks dipped.

wont happen everyday but they will do it.

 

Just make sure if youve got red, have your receipts ready...the onus will be on us to prove we have paid the duty

[carlt]

Just to clarify a couple of points;

 

1) I don't think it's OK to dodge this tax, and have no intention of doing so (even though I disagree with its imposition). That doesn't stop me from passing comment on how trivially easy it will be for people to dodge it.

2) It isn't speculation as such. It is based upon an assumption that HMRC's preferred option is implemented as set out in the discussion document.

So you'd do your civil duty and report someone if you knew they were dodging the tax?

 

It is speculation, as such, if nothing's been decided yet. It may be the preferred option for now but, once the folly of having an identifying marker in a vehicle fuel identifying it as exempt from the vehicle fuerl tax sinks in, the preferred option will be dropped.

 

Once the tax is the same for all vehicles, i will be perfectly within my rights to fill my car with diesel at my local boatyard. Driving legally on red diesel, if the marker stays.

[mayalld]

But do we actually know that red diesel used for heating in boats will not be taxed at the full rate?

 

Yes. The same directive that requires us to pay full rate for propulsion prevents them requiring full rate for heating.

 

I can see the exemption for residential boats (although residential status may have to be proved - tricky for all the unnofficial liveaboards) but will this apply to lesiure boaters? Boaters already pay 17.5% VAT on electricity in marinas rather than the 5% domestic rate because they are seen to be using it as a part of a leisure activity.

 

The 17.5% VAT on "leisure" electricity is plain wrong, and you should speak to HMRC if you are being charged 17.5%

 

Marina Operators pay 17.5% VAT, which they reclaim as input tax. They should charge 5% which they account for as output tax.

 

VAT note 701/19 refers.

[carlt]

Edited owing to double posting (though the question wasn't answered)

Edited August 8, 2007 by carlt

[mayalld]

Bigger fish to fry, the fatal thought of many a tax evader.We all know the police have far more important things to do, so why are people still being stopped and stuck on for no seat belt?Why do the DOT still do roadside checks for dangerous condition and no operators licence?Why do C&E still do random stops on heavies and dip their fuel tanks looking for red diesel?Why do DSS do roadside checks on cabbies looking for benefit fraud?Mark my word chums, It will happen, people will be stopped at hot spots on the cut or at selected marinas and have their tanks dipped.wont happen everyday but they will do it.

But given that HMRC are proposing to allow the use of red (albeit with duty paid), that won't prove anything.

Once the tax is the same for all vehicles, i will be perfectly within my rights to fill my car with diesel at my local boatyard. Driving legally on red diesel, if the marker stays.

No you won't.It is proposed (as a concession) to permit the use of red in boats provided that the duty is actually paid. That concession will not be available for cars.

[carlt]

No you won't.It is proposed (as a concession) to permit the use of red in boats provided that the duty is actually paid. That concession will not be available for cars.

Speculation

[saltysplash]

But given that HMRC are proposing to allow the use of red (albeit with duty paid), that won't prove anything.

 

It wont be for revenue boys to prove the red in your tank has duty paid, that onus will be on us. Its happening now in holland and a few people have been caught out not being able to prove they bought the red in the uk and have received hefty fines.

 

Just dont be lolled into a false sense of security thinking nobody is ever going to check

[mayalld]

Speculation

It may only be a proposal, but if the HMRC proposal is implemented, then this will be the position.

 

Could I recomend the HMRC consultation document

 

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalW...CE_PROD1_027786

 

In particular paragraph 2.16

 

It wont be for revenue boys to prove the red in your tank has duty paid, that onus will be on us. Its happening now in holland and a few people have been caught out not being able to prove they bought the red in the uk and have received hefty fines.Just dont be lolled into a false sense of security thinking nobody is ever going to check

 

This is not the proposal, and indeed would fail in any court of law.In order to prosecute for evasion, HMRC would have to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that you had used rebated fuel. It would be for them to prove the offence, not for you to prove your innocence.

Edited August 8, 2007 by mayalld

[Scotty]

This is not the proposal, and indeed would fail in any court of law.In order to prosecute for evasion, HMRC would have to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that you had used rebated fuel. It would be for them to prove the offence, not for you to prove your innocence.

That doesn't seem to apply to the many speed cameras in this country.

The registered keeper of the vehicle is deemed to be guilty of speeding unless they can prove their innocence by providing evidence of another driver.

 

The government seem to be happy to change the law as they please if the revenue generated is high enough

[mayalld]

That doesn't seem to apply to the many speed cameras in this country.

The registered keeper of the vehicle is deemed to be guilty of speeding unless they can prove their innocence by providing evidence of another driver.

 

Not true.

 

The registered keeper can be found guilty of failing to supply information (s172), but will not be found guilty of speeding due to lack of evidence.

 

This actually makes a difference, as speeding carries 3-6 points, whilst s172 is always 3 points.

 

So refusing to say will get you less points, but probably a bigger fine, and your insurers are far more fussy about it than speeding.

[Machpoint005]

That doesn't seem to apply to the many speed cameras in this country.

The registered keeper of the vehicle is deemed to be guilty of speeding unless they can prove their innocence by providing evidence of another driver.

 

The government seem to be happy to change the law as they please if the revenue generated is high enough

The subtle difference here is that they know the vehicle was speeding and can prove it with appropriate photographic evidence. All they do is assume the registered keeper was (i) driving or (ii) knew who was. Or are you suggesting that a speed camera can give a 'false positive'?

 

I put it to you (and any speeding driver) that if you exceed the speed limit and get caught, it's nobody's fault but your own.

 

If there's red diesel in a tank and there shouldn't be ... then the owner is responsible. If there is reasonable doubt, there will be no case.

 

Ian

[saltysplash]

It may only be a proposal, but if the HMRC proposal is implemented, then this will be the position.

 

Could I recomend the HMRC consultation document

 

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalW...CE_PROD1_027786

 

In particular paragraph 2.16

This is not the proposal, and indeed would fail in any court of law.In order to prosecute for evasion, HMRC would have to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that you had used rebated fuel. It would be for them to prove the offence, not for you to prove your innocence.

 

Sorry Dave but it would be classed as an absolute offence as in many road traffic offences, The onus is on us to prove otherwise or provide lawfull excuse. Just the same as being stopped by customs at the airport, or proving your boat has had vat paid.

Am eagerly waiting the final proposals as my current supplier who delivers direct to the boat here on the medway would no longer bother with the pleasure craft if he is forced to carry red and white, but would continue to supply if allowed to just add the duty to the red he already carries

[Nine of Hearts]

For speeding fines the cameras would have to be pretty high resolution and pointing stright in through the windcsreen to prove you were driving. I imagine it falls within the "reasonable doubt" that if you're the registered keeper, then you're driving or you know who is.

 

As for proving that the provenance of diesel in your tank, no matter how many receipts you've got clutched in your innocent trembling paw, there's absolutely no way you can prove that they correlate to the fuel in question. And I'm not advocating tax evasion, I just don't see how it can be policed if the deisel remains red and of the same formula after the tax imposition.

 

I'm now going to hide behind the sofa, I've been on threads like this before...

[Scotty]

HMRC would have to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that you had used rebated fuel

So what's to stop the HMRC from finding a nice little 'guilty of failing to supply information' alternative when we fail to prove that we used rebated fuel

[mayalld]

Sorry Dave but it would be classed as an absolute offence as in many road traffic offences, The onus is on us to prove otherwise or provide lawfull excuse.

 

That isn't what is meant by an absolute offence.

 

An absolute offence is one where "mens rea" (guilty mind) is not required.

 

It does not alter the burden of proof.

 

Speeding is an absolute offence, because it doesn't matter that you had no intent to speed. It doesn't alter the fact that in order to convict, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that;

1) The vehicle was exceeding the speed limit.

2) You were driving.

 

That is why they have the alternate s172 charge of failing to identify the driver (which is not an absolute offence), where they must prove;

1) The vehicle was being driven so as to breach another section of the act.

2) You are the registered keeper.

3) You failed, without reasonable cause, to identify the driver.

[saltysplash]

Not true.

 

The registered keeper can be found guilty of failing to supply information (s172), but will not be found guilty of speeding due to lack of evidence.

 

This actually makes a difference, as speeding carries 3-6 points, whilst s172 is always 3 points.

 

So refusing to say will get you less points, but probably a bigger fine, and your insurers are far more fussy about it than speeding.

 

Correct, but in cases such as no seat belt or mobile phone, the constable has seen the offence and it is upto the driver to provide reasonable excuse, or exemption.

my point re the fuel is, a revenue inspector will dip the tank and find red diesel. No receipt, No defence, unles you bring the supplier as a witness to court who will give evidence that he supplied the fuel to you with duty paid

It all seems very unlikely but we all know how persistant the government can be when following up cases of tax avoidence, a private company probably wouldnt bother to go through the expense of court etc

[adam1uk]

I'm not advocating tax evasion, I just don't see how it can be policed if the deisel remains red and of the same formula after the tax imposition.

Exactly. If they'd wanted to, they could have proposed that boats stop using red, that everyone would have to have new tanks and systems to get rid of the dye, and retailers would have had to sell red and white. But they haven't. They've proposed a system that, as you say, is incredibly difficult to police. But don't forget that the government never wanted to impose this tax in the first place, and it will raise peanuts in government terms. As such, they're not going to put a great deal of effort into trying to enforce it, as the consultation document itself implies.

a revenue inspector will dip the tank and find red diesel. No receipt, No defence, unles you bring the supplier as a witness to court who will give evidence that he supplied the fuel to you with duty paid It all seems very unlikely but we all know how persistant the government can be when following up cases of tax avoidence, a private company probably wouldnt bother to go through the expense of court etc

It'll be pointless dipping the tank, because they'll know you'll have red in there.And just look at the figures from the consultation document. The potential revenue from this will be 0.06 per cent of the total revenue from fuel taxes. They say the effort to enforce it will be proportional, which to me suggests that they'll be putting in very little effort. It's not worth spending the time and money for such little return, and on a tax they never wanted in the first place.

[mayalld]

Correct, but in cases such as no seat belt or mobile phone, the constable has seen the offence and it is upto the driver to provide reasonable excuse, or exemption.

my point re the fuel is, a revenue inspector will dip the tank and find red diesel. No receipt, No defence, unles you bring the supplier as a witness to court who will give evidence that he supplied the fuel to you with duty paid

It all seems very unlikely but we all know how persistant the government can be when following up cases of tax avoidence, a private company probably wouldnt bother to go through the expense of court etc

 

Please, read the HMRC consultation document (I posted the link to it).

 

Of course the inspector will find red diesel, because you are allowed to use red diesel.

 

You are not allowed to use rebated red diesel, and it is for HMRC to prove that, as there is no evidence that you have used rebated diesel.

[saltysplash]

Please, read the HMRC consultation document (I posted the link to it).

 

Of course the inspector will find red diesel, because you are allowed to use red diesel.

 

You are not allowed to use rebated red diesel, and it is for HMRC to prove that, as there is no evidence that you have used rebated diesel.

 

I hope your right, and sure time will tell. lets keep our fingers crossed that is gonna be a fairly painless transition for us and the suppliers

[david and julie]

The subtle difference here is that they know the vehicle was speeding and can prove it with appropriate photographic evidence. All they do is assume the registered keeper was (i) driving or (ii) knew who was. Or are you suggesting that a speed camera can give a 'false positive'? I put it to you (and any speeding driver) that if you exceed the speed limit and get caught, it's nobody's fault but your own.

They may know a vehicle was speeding but they also know it may not be you driving it too, just because it has a number plate registered to you doesn't mean its your car. The ammount of cloned vehicles is now at a record and will get worse with their road charging scams. Assumptions shouldn't belong in any true and just court, the driver may genuinely not know who was driving at the time and furthermore there is no law requiring him or her to record such details either. Camera's are a machine and any machine can malfunction, to assume they can't give false positives is at best naive.The whole stealth tax/speeding scam racket is beginning to backfire now, even the police openly admit that when they ask the public for help, drivers are more likely to show them two fingers often quoting S172 as the reason.

What new format? Have I missed an upgrade?

When I say "new format" I mean the way posts are now listed in a line below the OP. It changed about a month ago didn't it?

[Scotty]

When I say "new format" I mean the way posts are now listed in a line below the OP. It changed about a month ago didn't it?

lol nope, I think iknow what you've done, try this:

 

Top right of the post is a drop down box 'options'

 

In 'Display Modes' click on 'switch to Standard'