|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 10, 2021 10:33:51 GMT
Wasn't the argument that the boat was stationary outside of the navigable channel on a PRN river? Of course there is the thorny question of who pays to impound water in the reaches by using weirs so yes technically someone doing that without paying is indeed being subsided by others who do pay. I think you will find that on EA rivers it doesn't matter where the boat is you still have to have a registration even if the boat is up a backwater. He wasn't on EA waters. However like you say he was being subsidised due to the court ruling going in CRT favour. Until that is appealed that is wholly correct. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 10, 2021 10:56:23 GMT
Wasn't the argument that the boat was stationary outside of the navigable channel on a PRN river? Of course there is the thorny question of who pays to impound water in the reaches by using weirs so yes technically someone doing that without paying is indeed being subsided by others who do pay. I think you will find that on EA rivers it doesn't matter where the boat is you still have to have a registration even if the boat is up a backwater. but they call it by the correct legal name ....... so you don't have to pay VAT on top because CRT didn't use the correct term and are too up their own ..... to change |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2021 11:00:26 GMT
Wasn't the argument that the boat was stationary outside of the navigable channel on a PRN river? Of course there is the thorny question of who pays to impound water in the reaches by using weirs so yes technically someone doing that without paying is indeed being subsided by others who do pay. I think you will find that on EA rivers it doesn't matter where the boat is you still have to have a registration even if the boat is up a backwater. Certainly true on the Thames if Thames water flows through then it's part of the River subject to registration and also publicly accessible ie not private. There was a case some years ago where EA challenged the right of the land owner ( Tiny Rowland) to claim the weir stream at Hedsor was his private water. EA won and notices were removed. It is part of the River. They got away with saying it was private for a long time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2021 11:15:23 GMT
I know that HD was not on EA waters I was making the point what others have to pay.
As for the VAT is the registration the maximum cart are allowed to charge plus 20% or is it just the maximum they can charge?
|
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 10, 2021 11:20:04 GMT
I know that HD was not on EA waters I was making the point what others have to pay. As for the VAT is the registration the maximum cart are allowed to charge plus 20% or is it just the maximum they can charge? I think the argument is they can only charge 60%(I think) of the license fee for registrations. What they do is charge 60% of licence fee inclusive of the Vat. Registrations are Vat free. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2021 11:30:43 GMT
I know that HD was not on EA waters I was making the point what others have to pay. As for the VAT is the registration the maximum cart are allowed to charge plus 20% or is it just the maximum they can charge? I think the argument is they can only charge 60%(I think) of the license fee for registrations. What they do is charge 60% of licence fee inclusive of the Vat. Registrations are Vat free. In which case the whole argument about the VAT is spurious since the only one losing out is cart* as if it was vat free the fee would not change it would still be 60% of the licence fee. It's a no win situation no matter how much one believes they are right. * Cart may not be losing as it might enable them to claim back extra outgoings. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2021 11:56:34 GMT
The VAT argument is a red herring as is the BS exemption argument.
Stick to the topic of boat being outside navigable channel and go down one route or you risk looking devilish or incompetent or both.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 10, 2021 12:24:15 GMT
I think the argument is they can only charge 60%(I think) of the license fee for registrations. What they do is charge 60% of licence fee inclusive of the Vat. Registrations are Vat free. In which case the whole argument about the VAT is spurious since the only one losing out is cart* as if it was vat free the fee would not change it would still be 60% of the licence fee. It's a no win situation no matter how much one believes they are right. * Cart may not be losing as it might enable them to claim back extra outgoings. Cart probably can claim back the VAT paid so for them it's no loss - no gain ..,..... but the person buying the so called "licence" can't. Yet again the boat owner loses
VAT is value added tax ..... with registration there is no value added ...... they just have to fall in line with all the other waterways authorities who charge a percentage of the pre vat rate
|
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 10, 2021 12:27:18 GMT
Perhaps ot was a separate argument but I'm pretty sure Tony took it up anyway.
The vat thing can be brought up in a defence, the bss was the excuse crt needed, they can now justify refusal of issuing a registration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2021 12:29:51 GMT
In which case the whole argument about the VAT is spurious since the only one losing out is cart* as if it was vat free the fee would not change it would still be 60% of the licence fee. It's a no win situation no matter how much one believes they are right. * Cart may not be losing as it might enable them to claim back extra outgoings. Cart probably can claim back the VAT paid so for them it's no loss - no gain ..,..... but the person buying the so called "licence" can't. Yet again the boat owner loses VAT is value added tax ..... with registration there is no value added ...... they just have to fall in line with all the other waterways authorities who charge a percentage of the pre vat rate
Boaters are not losing out, the fee for the registration would be the same whether it has vat or not. If the fee for the registration was 60% of the licence plus VAT then boat owners would be losing out. Unless of course you believe that if the VAT was removed the fee would go down by 20%🤭🤭🤭🤭🤭 |
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 10, 2021 12:29:56 GMT
Perhaps it was a separate argument but I'm pretty sure Tony took it up anyway.
The vat thing can be brought up in a defence, the bss was the excuse crt needed, they can now justify refusal of issuing a registration.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 10, 2021 12:31:54 GMT
Perhaps ot was a separate argument but I'm pretty sure Tony took it up anyway. The vat thing can be brought up in a defence, the bss was the excuse crt needed, they can now justify refusal of issuing a registration. except Tony shoukld be able to take his argument to the arbitration panel that was required to be set up by the licensing authority in the waterways acts to decide on this kind of argument between the licencing authority and the licencee
.................. you know, the requirement that CRT quietly forgot about.. |
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 10, 2021 12:33:11 GMT
Perhaps ot was a separate argument but I'm pretty sure Tony took it up anyway. The vat thing can be brought up in a defence, the bss was the excuse crt needed, they can now justify refusal of issuing a registration. except Tony shoukld be able to take his argument to the arbitration panel that was required to be set up by the licensing authority in the waterways acts to decide on this kind of argument between the licencing authority and the licencee
.................. you know, the requirement that CRT quietly forgot about.. All part of his claim/defence, I suspect more claim because I get the impression crt are done. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 10, 2021 12:37:28 GMT
Cart probably can claim back the VAT paid so for them it's no loss - no gain ..,..... but the person buying the so called "licence" can't. Yet again the boat owner loses VAT is value added tax ..... with registration there is no value added ...... they just have to fall in line with all the other waterways authorities who charge a percentage of the pre vat rate
Boaters are not losing out, the fee for the registration would be the same whether it has vat or not. If the fee for the registration was 60% of the licence plus VAT then boat owners would be losing out. Unless of course you believe that if the VAT was removed the fee would go down by 20%🤭🤭🤭🤭🤭
For canal users the licence is X pounds but because it does attract VAT it is charged as X pounds +VAT ...... the cost of the licence is stil X pounds River registration is charged as a maximum of 60% of the canal licence and does not attract VAT therefore it does not attract the percentage of VAT in the base price i.e. the pre-vat price of the canal licence is what the 60% is based on
I used to do my VAT accounts so don't be a berk |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2021 12:48:54 GMT
I was VAT registered as well for years made a lot of money out of it 😎 it's amazing what you can do with the money in the three months before you have to pay it to the VAT man.
Having never noticed VAT mentioned on my licence I forgot that it was on there.
|
|
