MP dodges TAX

Since none of you read up on it. You won’t be aware that it’s available to plenty of people. There is no requirement for the vessel to be new and no minimum value.

Notch7 said:
So a benefit that is essentially a loophole

It’s a benefit to about 0.00000001% of the U.K. population, the remaining 99.999999% are worse off
Click to expand...
Not a loop hole. All the appropriate forms were filed and the HMRC notified correctly. Same applies at the other end.]

How’s our Angie getting on with her retrospective filing or is she waiting for the investigation?
 
Last edited:
carmanmemoranda said:
Exactly that.

And yet more taxation (luxury goods) goes away from where its needed
Click to expand...
In this case it’s French income tax and VAT that is lost as the U.K. scheme is now better than the previous French scheme.

It’s highly likely that the vessel will end up back in the U.K. in about 10 years. So a Brexit benefit.
 
motorbiking said:
In this case it’s French income tax and VAT that is lost as the U.K. scheme is now better than the previous French scheme.

It’s highly likely that the vessel will end up back in the U.K. in about 10 years. So a Brexit benefit.
Click to expand...
So you pay vat in uk you mean ?
 
I've always said it - the only people that will ever benefit from Brexit are a few wealthy Tory scum.

Meanwhile, The UK and it's honest residents are £170 billion worse off. Set to get even worserererer this year with checks being finally implemented. Put on pause because of Britain's fragile economy.

Brexit - utter pile of pointless shít.
 
No queue at passport control on my way home tonight.

Some people moan some find opportunities
 
As I’ve said before I was very much on the fence and only slightly persuaded to vote leave.

It’s certainly not worth all the p*** and bile complaining given that nobody is proposing to rejoin.
 
motorbiking said:
As I’ve said before I was very much on the fence and only slightly persuaded to vote leave.

It’s certainly not worth all the p*** and bile complaining given that nobody is proposing to rejoin.
Click to expand...
No, you misunderstand.

I cant wait for the opportunities and benefits. Just they seem to be in short supply, in fact the goalposts have moved that much, all we get is, well it's not much worse, or it's about the same. No point in the very expensive brexit if that's the case.

But we all know lots of things that are worse, apart from the deniers.
 
motorbiking said:
Yes you can export a boat vat free and keep it in the EU. This wasn’t possible when the U.K. was part of the EU.

Under EU rules as long as you take it out regularly you do not have to import it and pay vat. A few trips to turkey with a fuel top up is sufficient to prove you left and the clock stops and resets. You do this until you either sell it “VAT not paid” or permanently import it somewhere and pay VAT at the second hand value.

It’s called the sail away scheme
Click to expand...

Thanks. I've done my best to understand, but I am still hopeless with these things! I've been reading this briefing, which seems to say the Sailaway scheme is for non-UK residents. Can you explain the whole situation simply? Also, it seems to be saying that this is a way to avoid UK VAT?

If you are a non-UK resident and are considering buying a pleasure craft in the UK but intend to permanently keep it in the EU, you may be eligible to purchase your vessel VAT-free using the Sailaway Boat Scheme.
Click to expand...

https://www.shoosmiths.com/insights/articles/brexit-guidance-a-marine-update-vat-on-pleasure-craft
 
carmanmemoranda said:
Michelle Donelan's false Hamas claim about academic cost taxpayer £15,000
Click to expand...

Do we know why the tax payer is covering her libel costs. In what capacity did she tweet, as an MP, or as a minister, or as a private citizen. Was she doing this at the behest of the government?
 
JonathanM said:
Do we know why the tax payer is covering her libel costs. In what capacity did she tweet, as an MP, or as a minister, or as a private citizen. Was she doing this at the behest of the government?
Click to expand...
This sort of covers it, but doesn't really explain why the taxpayer is paying, for what I think was a personal comment, not a Government comment.



A DSIT spokesperson said: "There is an established precedent under multiple administrations that ministers are provided with legal support and representation where matters relate to their conduct and responsibilities as a minister, as was the case here.
"The secretary of state received the appropriate advice from relevant officials at all times.
"A sum of £15,000 was paid without admitting any liability. This approach is intended to reduce the overall costs to the taxpayer that could result from protracted legal action, no matter what the result would have been."


And this, sounds a bit more to this too.

www.theguardian.com

UK science secretary received government advice before Hamas tweet

No 10 refuses to say how Michelle Donelan was advised over accusation against academic who then sued her for libel
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top