|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 24, 2019 5:13:22 GMT
Over on CWDF last Wednesday, someone raised the question as to whether the fee boaters pay for C&RT's ''Rivers only Licence" really is a 'Licence' fee or if in truth it's simply a 'Registration' fee which, like the EA's boat Registration fees, is NOT subject to having VAT charged on it. The CWDF thread has lost sight of the original question and wandered off into discussing how VAT works and is applied to monetary transactions in general, . . . . so let's see if TB can make a better job of educating C&RT's river based/using customers about how much they're owed in VAT refunds !
The answer to the 'Licence or Registration' question is a resounding and emphatic NO, it's NOT 'Licence' fee, . . it is simply a Registration fee which is NOT subject to having VAT slapped on top of it. Since BW dishonestly began describing and selling the Pleasure Boat Certificate, or 'River Registration' as they used to call it in the years immediately after the 1971 BW Act hit the Statute book, as the fraudulent and non-existent 'Rivers Only Licence', everyone who has been paying the full amount demanded by BW and C&RT has been overcharged and robbed to the tune of the total of VAT wrongfully added every year to the Registration fee by either BW or C&RT!
Section 4 (1) of the 1983 BW Act makes clear distinctions as to the 'registration' of a boat/vessel for river only use , as opposed to the 'licensing' of the same vessel for use on any of BW/C&RT's other inland waterways, ie. river navigations/waterways not listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 BW Act, and the man-made canals :
Registration of 4.—(l) Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act pleasure boats and houseboats of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.
As much as it will hurt C&RT to admit it, both from the financial/VAT management standpoint and with regard to the 'wellbeing' of their megalomanic mind-set, the effect of S.4 (1) of the 1983 Act stands unamended/unaltered by any other legislation to this day, and they will have to face up to and sort out this problem that they have busied themselves creating for so long !
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 24, 2019 5:29:01 GMT
Would the gold licence be affected too, as that is partly registration as well.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 24, 2019 5:40:20 GMT
Would the gold licence be affected too, as that is partly registration as well. That might need a bit more thinking about, but my initial reaction would be to say that the EA's cut from the total fee would, or should be, free of VAT for same reasons that their annual Registration fees are.
|
|
|
Post by patty on May 24, 2019 6:11:14 GMT
So have CRT being paying the vat that they charge boaters to the Inland Revenue? Does this mean that rebate needs to come down the line?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 24, 2019 9:52:11 GMT
So have CRT being paying the vat that they charge boaters to the Inland Revenue? Does this mean that rebate needs to come down the line? The Inland Revenue don't collect VAT, Patty, . . that's down to HMRC, formerly Customs & Excise, but the charging and collection of VAT, classed as 'output tax' (ie. VAT added to and collected on sales/services) collected from customers, is the sole responsibility of VAT registered traders/bodies such as C&RT who are in effect simply complying with a statutory obligation to act as unpaid tax collectors. To answer your question, however, the refunds will have to come directly from C&RT back to those who have wrongfully been charged, and paid, VAT on misrepresented items. There are no grounds for anyone to claim a refund from HMRC because they haven't collected any tax directly from the boaters who have been lied to and misled by C&RT. The wrongful application and collection of the VAT is the sole responsibility of the organization that has collected it on behalf of HMRC, . . in this instance C&RT, by means of knowingly and fraudulently misrepresenting a Registration fee as a Licence fee. The massive problem of rectifying the financial mess they've made of their VAT accounting with HMRC rests entirely with C&RT, who as a consequence of their own dishonesty in collecting a cumulatively huge sum of money in 'output tax' that was never payable in the first place, have in fact robbed themselves of the benefit of the use of all the years of 'input tax' (ie. VAT they have paid on invoices from suppliers) that they could/should have offset and reclaimed against a lower, but legitimately collected total sum of 'output tax' collected from customers buying genuine boat Licences, which DO attract VAT at standard rate. I've had irrefutable evidence of this particular instance of C&RT's intentional wrongdoing for some time now in the form of internal memo's and communications which leave no room for doubt that C&RT have known all along that they cannot legally charge VAT on Registration fees, which is of course one of their main reasons for fraudulently misrepresenting the Pleasure Boat (Registration) Certificate as a "Rivers Only Licence", . . the other one being to engage the "there [on the waterway] without lawfully authority" clause under their Section 8 powers. The Licence-v-Registration thread on CWDF was an ideal opportunity to remind C&RT of this, and to publicly drop this nice little hot potato into their corporate lap, . . . so that's a big thank you to the site owner, and everyone else over there with their noses up Parry & Co's increasingly exposed backsides !
|
|
|
Post by patty on May 24, 2019 14:30:16 GMT
So have CRT being paying the vat that they charge boaters to the Inland Revenue? Does this mean that rebate needs to come down the line? The Inland Revenue don't collect VAT, Patty, . . that's down to HMRC, formerly Customs & Excise, but the charging and collection of VAT, classed as 'output tax' (ie. VAT added to and collected on sales/services) collected from customers, is the sole responsibility of VAT registered traders/bodies such as C&RT who are in effect simply complying with a statutory obligation to act as unpaid tax collectors. To answer your question, however, the refunds will have to come directly from C&RT back to those who have wrongfully been charged, and paid, VAT on misrepresented items. There are no grounds for anyone to claim a refund from HMRC because they haven't collected any tax directly from the boaters who have been lied to and misled by C&RT. The wrongful application and collection of the VAT is the sole responsibility of the organization that has collected it on behalf of HMRC, . . in this instance C&RT, by means of knowingly and fraudulently misrepresenting a Registration fee as a Licence fee. The massive problem of rectifying the financial mess they've made of their VAT accounting with HMRC rests entirely with C&RT, who as a consequence of their own dishonesty in collecting a cumulatively huge sum of money in 'output tax' that was never payable in the first place, have in fact robbed themselves of the benefit of the use of all the years of 'input tax' (ie. VAT they have paid on invoices from suppliers) that they could/should have offset and reclaimed against a lower, but legitimately collected total sum of 'output tax' collected from customers buying genuine boat Licences, which DO attract VAT at standard rate. I've had irrefutable evidence of this particular instance of C&RT's intentional wrongdoing for some time now in the form of internal memo's and communications which leave no room for doubt that C&RT have known all along that they cannot legally charge VAT on Registration fees, which is of course one of their main reasons for fraudulently misrepresenting the Pleasure Boat (Registration) Certificate as a "Rivers Only Licence", . . the other one being to engage the "there [on the waterway] without lawfully authority" clause under their Section 8 powers. The Licence-v-Registration thread on CWDF was an ideal opportunity to remind C&RT of this, and to publicly drop this nice little hot potato into their corporate lap, . . . so that's a big thank you to the site owner, and everyone else over there with their noses up Parry & Co's increasingly exposed backsides ! Thanks Tony..its a bit of a mess...
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 24, 2019 14:44:12 GMT
I'm wondering why CRT would charge VAT when none is due, there's no profit in it for them. I guess the 2 possibilities are that they didn't bother checking with HMRC or otherwise, HMRC (incorrectly) told them that VAT should be charged.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 24, 2019 15:43:04 GMT
I'm wondering why CRT would charge VAT when none is due, there's no profit in it for them. I guess the 2 possibilities are that they didn't bother checking with HMRC or otherwise, HMRC (incorrectly) told them that VAT should be charged. As I said in my earlier post :.. "I've had irrefutable evidence of this particular instance of C&RT's intentional wrongdoing for some time now in the form of internal memo's and communications which leave no room for doubt that C&RT have known all along that they cannot legally charge VAT on Registration fees, which is of course one of their main reasons for fraudulently misrepresenting the Pleasure Boat (Registration) Certificate as a "Rivers Only Licence", . . the other one being to engage the "there [on the waterway] without lawfully authority" clause under their Section 8 powers."
. . . . . . Charging VAT on Pleasure Boat (Registration) Certificates is simply a ploy on C&RT's part to lend credence to their lies about it being a 'Licence', . . which they have to perpetuate in order to engage and exercise Section 8 removal powers over non-sunk, non-stranded, and non-abandoned boats on the river waterways where the 'lawful authority' to keep and use a vessel on the waterway is not in their gift to grant or refuse. The lawful authority to keep and use a vessel on the river waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 BW Act IS the common law Public Right of Navigation (PRN), and, much as C&RT would wish everyone to believe otherwise, NOT some phony, so-called 'Licence' issued by a megalomania ridden and thoroughly dishonest navigation authority with a taste for stealing people's boats from them under the guise of action intended, supposedly, ''to manage, conserve and keep the waterways safe".
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 24, 2019 15:55:58 GMT
All in all, well done, Tony, for bringing all this sort of thing to light. It's ammunition for those who can be bothered to makes notes. It does seem to me that you just want things to be fair and just, and despise the twisted con-artist tricks of those who like to show they are 'in authority'. It must frustrate you to see how easily fooled boaters can be, and all those with their ostrich necks well buried in the sand.
|
|
|
Post by ched on May 24, 2019 18:36:18 GMT
Thanks Tony,
How would one go about getting ones money back? This could add-up to quite a significant amount for us.
I was thinking something along the lines of writing to them, they say no, then filing a small claims.
What does everyone (and Nigel!) think would be the best course of action?
Anyone up for banding together for a class action if that's possible?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2019 18:39:02 GMT
Iwantmywintermooringfeeback.com Iwantmyvatback.com
Same sort of thing as iwantmyppiback.com
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 24, 2019 20:46:03 GMT
I'm wondering why CRT would charge VAT when none is due, there's no profit in it for them. I guess the 2 possibilities are that they didn't bother checking with HMRC or otherwise, HMRC (incorrectly) told them that VAT should be charged. Having been VAT- registered myself in the past, my experience is that HMRC soon quick let you know if VAT has been incorrectly applied when you ( or in my case, my accountant) submit your quarterly accounts and in fairness to them this works both ways. There will have been absolutely no financial advantage to CRT in charging VAT on a service which is VAT exempt, since the VAT charged will have ended up with HMRC in its entirety, and furthermore if HMRC accept that VAT was incorrectly applied then they will refund the VAT to CRT in order that they in turn can refund it to licence payers.
|
|
|
Post by ched on May 24, 2019 21:06:53 GMT
To paraphrase Tony, the only reason I can see is to carry out a legal 'slight of hand'.
I imagine there is quite a bit of difference legally speaking between the terms 'certificate' and 'licence'.
You could call it power grab and yet another over reach by the charity.
|
|
|
Post by ched on May 24, 2019 21:13:08 GMT
....The VAT money has little to do with it....
...Other than it looks like it was possibly added fraudulently and may rightfully belongs to you if you bought one of these...
|
|
philjw
Junior Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by philjw on May 24, 2019 21:44:03 GMT
"There will have been absolutely no financial advantage to CRT in charging VAT on a service which is VAT exempt, since the VAT charged will have ended up with HMRC in its entirety, and furthermore if HMRC accept that VAT was incorrectly applied then they will refund the VAT to CRT in order that they in turn can refund it to licence payers."
Not so. If CRT have some taxable outputs and some exempt, increasing the percentage of taxable outputs could increase the amount of VAT they have paid on goods and services they can claim as input tax. This is subject to the details of their partial exemption calculation.
|
|