|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 5, 2019 13:10:57 GMT
About the last time I hitched a lift myself, it was only because I was travelling for awhile with a young French guy in Egypt, whom I had met at the Youth Hostel in Cairo – and he did not have my advantage of a bicycle. We travelled a good few miles south towards Luxor atop a truck load, but the driver kept stopping, to climb up to our perch indicating amorous intentions towards the unreceptive Frenchman. Eventually getting the message that he was not going to get his end away, he turfed us off summarily and grumpily, and we camped out in the middle of nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 5, 2019 12:55:15 GMT
My most memorable pick-up was a young girl hitching during a petrol delivery drivers’ strike. I had anticipated the shortage problem by buying a 44 gallon drum I carried in the trailer, but when I mentioned this as the reason I was able to be driving by, out in the sticks, she got all indignant about my undermining the efforts of the poor drivers seeking a wage increase. The reaction perplexes me still. If she supported the strike, why was she hitching lifts? She didn’t offer to get out and continue walking to show her solidarity with the cause.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Dec 2, 2019 20:32:57 GMT
and not just dug into their dusty photo albums and pulled a picture out snapped by their mum of them sitting in a bath in the 1940s. That was obviously a disguised wish! I can’t oblige with one of myself of course, since you specified the forties (much too late), so you will have to be content with one of my much younger brother – We still couldn't afford baths at that stage of course, but I trust that the kitchen sink will be acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2019 18:23:56 GMT
Just another question or so to throw into this quagmire – were BW VAT registered in 1989, the year they apparently ‘elected’ to start charging VAT on Licences? Did they at that time also charge VAT on Registrations? If not, when did they start putting VAT on both?
I may be simple-minded here (figures not my forte) but they could not charge VAT if NOT VAT registered, and if they already were, then how could they not (if the charge is applicable) have charged VAT on licences from the time of becoming registered?
So did they ‘elect’ to become registered AND start charging VAT on licences the same year?
If this was a matter of choice, then there must have been some way of demonstrating that they had minimal or negative turnover.
From a Commons Library Briefing 3 January 2019 –
“When VAT was first introduced in April 1973 the registration threshold was set at £5,000. In 1978, it was doubled to £10,000, and has been increased each year since 1980. Clearly the choice of a threshold will always represent a balance between the need to minimise the burden of tax collection, and the disadvantages from widening the existing exemption. As the then Chancellor, Anthony Barber, explained in his Budget Statement in March 1972, when VAT was first introduced, “there are two considerations: the loss of revenue, and the need to ensure equity as between small and large businesses in competition with each other.”13 In the 1990 Budget, the threshold was set at £25,400, which was in line with the increase in inflation since 1973. In the 1991 Budget the then Chancellor Norman Lamont announced that the threshold would be increased to £35,000:”
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/SN00963.pdf
I suspect that BW’s revenue stream was greater than £35,000/annum in 1989, so for registration to be voluntary, their “turnover” would have to be interpreted in the mysterious way that bedevils me every Corporation Tax Return – I have yet to understand it (well, I get to some understanding before completion of each Return, but my brain promptly shuts down on the whole ghastly ordeal, and I enjoy a year’s respite before having to work it all out again.)
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2019 12:11:23 GMT
From a canalworld discussion on the topic, 2015 – www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?/topic/74419-vat-on-licence/Idunhow quoted the same bumpf, with the additional bit: “ Why the boat licence is not a tax
The boat licence is not a tax in same way that the road fund licence or TV licence is levied. In addition to permission to navigate our waterways, the Trust provides other facilities along the network which are available only to licence holders. These include places to take on clean water, sanitary and waste disposal facilities, shower blocks, etc. No additional charge is made for these services, although a deposit is taken for the entrance key; it is classed as a supply of goods and services for the purposes of VAT. This contributes towards the cost of caring for the waterways. Without this, we could not dredge the canals; keep the locks in order; the tunnels safe; and all the other things you would reasonably expect from a navigation authority. Why doesn’t the Environment Agency charge VAT on their Boat Licence
The EA has a special exemption in VAT legislation that allows them to reclaim the VAT suffered on work carried out on their waterways. This means it does not need to make the same election as the Trust. Many years ago a BW request to HM Treasury for BW to have the same special exemption as the EA was rejected. This is why the VAT position for the two licences is different between the two authorities.” That last raises the question as to whether CaRT could now apply for the same exemption, based on their new classification as a charity. Then the whole question of VAT or no VAT on licences and registrations would be moot; they could do as the EA does and recover their VAT paid expenses regardless. I still cannot see how, for a VAT registered company, it is possible to " make the same election"; one can elect to be a VAT registered business if income is below a certain figure, but above that it is compulsory, and once registered - whether voluntarily or compulsorily - the idea that it can "elect" to charge VAT on applicable goods and services is surely questionable?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2019 11:40:41 GMT
Below is the information given out by CRT several years ago when the issue was being discussed at several meetings. The Trust is required by legislation to be registered for VAT. If you are registered for VAT you must charge VAT on all of your supplies where the law requires it. A VAT registered business regularly completes a VAT return in which it pays to HM Revenue & Customs all of the VAT it has collected from customers and reclaims all of the VAT it has incurred on goods and services it has acquired. However it is only possible to reclaim any VAT incurred if the VAT can be attributed to taxable business activities. The majority of all expenditure on the general maintenance and major repairs of the canal infrastructure includes VAT. Prior to 1989 British Waterways (BW) did not charge VAT on its boat licences and as a result was unable to recover VAT on its general repairs and maintenance of the canals. In 1989 BW opted to charge VAT on its property including canals to enable it to generate taxable activities (including charging VAT on the boat licence) on the canals, which in turn enabled BW to recover the VAT incurred on general maintenance and refurbishment. At the time BW did not increase the overall cost of the boat licence to the customer. If for example the licence at the time cost £300, after BW opted to charge VAT the licence still cost £300 (£255+ £45 VAT). In other words this cost was not passed on to BW’s customers. The Trust has continued to apply the same options to charge VAT. Without this option to charge VAT on the boat licence, at today’s level of expenditure on the canal infrastructure, the Trust would be losing up to £20 million per annum in lost VAT on the general and major repairs, and the price of the boat licence and other income streams would need to be increased by a significant amount to offset this loss. You have published that before, and it bemused me then. (Then again, the whole VAT business does.) It is true enough that VAT can only be recovered in respect of the costs of supplying a service – but even if the service you supply is zero-rated, the service VAT charge (at 0%) still qualifies you for rebate on the costs to you of supplying it. Only if the service/supply you provide is tax exempt or “out of scope” will the VAT you pay in respect of supplying that be irrecoverable. If a licence or registration fee is considered to be a statutory fee, then it is “out of scope”, and charging VAT is not only illegal, you would still be unable to recover VAT paid as cost of supply. If such were tax exempt, the same applies. If supply of a licence or registration certificate was zero-rated, then you could reclaim your costs regardless of the fact that the sum collected in respect of VAT was zero. So there would be no benefit in charging more anyway. If supplying licences &/or registration certificate IS vatable (at either 5% or 20%) then that would be non-discretionary, so I cannot see how BW – followed by CaRT – could legitimately say they “ opted to charge” in order to be able to recoup expenses. On another tack, supplies to qualifying Charities can be sold at the zero or reduced rate of VAT – I wonder if this is an option for CaRT as it could not have been for BW? I continue bemused.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2019 9:55:00 GMT
It will need a true VAT expert to look at it, and HMRC to give a definite answer. HMRC would certainly give a definitive answer, but of dubious value, and hardly the answer one might wish for. They have a long history of unilaterally declaring what should be subject to VAT with scant regard to legal technicalities. On past performance, they would be likely to enthusiastically support the imposition of VAT on licences & certificates of registration. I long had dealings with Richard Everett who took HMRC to the Tribunal (in 1995) over VAT imposition on converted barges used as residential vessels. He won, and because of protracted delays in HMRC dealing with the awarded costs, ended up making a tidy profit from the litigation (unusual) by reason of statutory interest rates. HMRC then insisted that purpose-built replicas could not enjoy the newly confirmed zero-rating status of converted ex-commercial barges, and 2 cases subsequently went before the relevant Tribunal – re: John Grieve and Colin Stone. These came to opposing conclusions, so they appealed the Stone decision to the High Court and lost (2008). The court decided that such vessels being built specifically for residential use (notwithstanding they could also be used for recreation or pleasure), they also enjoyed the status of qualifying ships. The HMRC published guides necessarily changed with each adverse decision. As an aside, with respect to narrowboats, they subsequently unilaterally applied a different formula for determining the tonnage value, so that no narrowboat could every qualify – surely a blatant 2 fingers up to the appropriate legislation.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 28, 2019 23:34:30 GMT
Sorry to be pedantic Tony, but granting the judge in Ravenscroft a higher status than she then enjoyed is strangely galling. The usual protocol would have you refer to “ Asplin J (as she then was)”, rather than refer to her with the status (“ Asplin LJ”) she later acquired having delivered herself of that judgment. I can quite understand how you would feel about that, Nigel, . . profound apologies ! Accepted.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 28, 2019 23:23:33 GMT
. . . the perverse Judgment of Asplin LJ in dismissing Leigh Ravenscroft's claim . . . Sorry to be pedantic Tony, but granting the judge in Ravenscroft a higher status than she then enjoyed is strangely galling. The usual protocol would have you refer to “ Asplin J (as she then was)”, rather than refer to her with the status (“ Asplin LJ”) she later acquired having delivered herself of that judgment.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 28, 2019 22:22:02 GMT
Either way it seems unlikely that waterways would be high on the agenda being such a niche subject. As somebody commented over on CWDF – Corbyn’s crew must have swallowed CaRT’s published visitor figures, and seen those as a worthwhile number of potential votes. It would be very nice to see the Conservatives recognise the disaster that they promulgated (with cross-party support) in privatising BW, and take a similar stance but on a more navigational-minded basis. Frankly, whether the waterways are public or private in the running, the crucial elements have to be transparency and accountability. The way CaRT is constituted, there is neither.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 28, 2019 16:30:19 GMT
Palawan was crowded 10 years ago when I went. It was surprising, quite difficult to get to the south, but crowded it was. I landed in Manila and spent 2 months moving by boat and bus to Boracay. I got around on my Bickerton – plus every other means of transport imaginable, something a fold-up allows you to do. Can’t say that even Manila was crowded, but then it was awhile back, in 1979.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 27, 2019 19:48:47 GMT
Queen Elizabeth the first was criticised (in her day) for her eccentic and extravagent custom of taking a bath every 6 months "whether she needed it or not". Rather dents your credibility by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 26, 2019 17:16:33 GMT
It may take more than the one...... The cautionary note is appreciated patty; it is of course always important to provide for all possible contingencies. It does of course depend upon the size of "the one". The capacity of the personalised whisky glass that my neighbours gave me last birthday was evidently sending me much the same message.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 26, 2019 16:53:40 GMT
. . . and today's response, not from the addressee, but from Deards, head of C&RT's Legal & Governance Services : There is obviously a pertinent moral in this somewhere – I write nice, polite emails to Mr Deards and get ignored; Tony writes somewhat less politely and gets emails from Mr Deards even when not asked for. I just knew it was a mistake to read out to Gilly that last missive to Deards. She is a fan of the more trenchant style, and is in no doubt at all of her discernment of the correct moral to be drawn . . . It was going to be another alcohol-free evening tonight, but after the resultant blistering exhortation to be more like Tony and less like my normal, pacific and non-confrontational self, I feel the need to nurse a gentling and soothing restorative.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 26, 2019 13:26:32 GMT
If CRT have failed to meet the ico ‘request’ that they respond with in 14 days I would complain to the ico as it is not just you they are ‘ignoring’ but also the ico, and the ico will not like that as they have their credibility to enforce the law at stake. Count on it.
|
|