Prime Time Tonight - SUV/VRT scam

Seth Brundle

Very interesting discussion on Prime Time now about SUV scams whereby people convert SUVs into commercial vehicles and therefore are only subjected to €50 VRT.
They then go out and revert the vehicle back to a non-commercial condition.

Incidentally Cyril McHugh from the SIMI is as I type accusing the majority of clocking on imported cars. I presume this has nothing to do with the SIMI members losing out to cheaper imports.

Michael Kilcoyne of the Consumers Assocation is doing yet another good job of defending the consumer against the motoring industry.

It was great - a motoring excuse to watch Miriam!

peasant

kbannon wrote:

.

It was great - a motoring excuse to watch Miriam!

[OT]

watching Miriam is all well and good ...havin to listen to her marblemouth on the other hand is painful

[/OT]

Sizzler

The guy from the engineering company didnt seem to mind showing the PT lads around did he ...yet the SIMI lad was saying these guys were an accessory to the fraud !

Must be some serious cash being made on this :eek:

galwaytt

for the record, converting a vehicle from passenger to commercial is not fraud.

Even converting a commercial to a passenger isn't fraud, either.

What is fraud, is not declaring the conversion in the case of the latter...........there is nothing to be gained by not declaring the former...........

ninty9er

Serious cash being made, but of 300 cars 240 were X5s!!!!!! BMW must be disgusted, turning the cars into vans...perish the thought:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Anyhow, there's an up to €126,970 fine and or 5 years impisonment at the disposal of a judge to use for this scam, plus I presume the VAT and VRT must also be paid!!!

So basically of the 300 people caught out so far, t'would probably have been half the price to buy the car here in the first place:D

Dub13

SIMI are a joke,when a journalist pointed out one of there members clocking and been a tug they do nothing.And here they are going for joe public.

galwaytt

ninty9er wrote:

Serious cash being made, but of 300 cars 240 were X5s!!!!!! BMW must be disgusted, turning the cars into vans...perish the thought:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Anyhow, there's an up to €126,970 fine and or 5 years impisonment at the disposal of a judge to use for this scam, plus I presume the VAT and VRT must also be paid!!!

So basically of the 300 people caught out so far, t'would probably have been half the price to buy the car here in the first place:D

I didn't see the programme, but how many people got fined the 126k+ ?? And they 'caught' 300 people, or someone has estimated 300 vehicles have been converted??

macshadow

In fairness this is a very old scam.There's no flies on them revenue boys.

ninty9er

galwaytt wrote:

I didn't see the programme, but how many people got fined the 126k+ ?? And they 'caught' 300 people, or someone has estimated 300 vehicles have been converted??

They have 300 cases open is what the lady from Revenue said IIRC. Basically 300 high end vehicles have been converted on entry to the state in the last 12/18 months(??). Now they're checking each and every one to make sure it's still a commercial.

Not sure of timeframes...was on in the background

jmayo

Are these jeeps then insured also as commericals?
If they are and they crash carrying passengers, as a passenger car, the insurance company will not want to know.
I presume it is similiar to changing your engine specifications and not telling insurance company.
Also do you recommericalise the vehicle every year so that you can do the DOE?

galwaytt

ninety9er, now that reply is at odds with that you inferred earlier.

So, 300 people have not been caught, and no one has paid a Eur126k fine.

Instead, 300 vehicles have been reg'd this way, and they are being checked. That's a huge difference. If, after checking, none of the 300 fall foul, nor that fine being levied, your inference is misleading.........

Finally, we converted a span new ML270 here for a customer. Removed all the rear accomodation (leather !!), manufactured a new steel floor and bulkhead, and WELDED it in place. It was then inspected by Revenue before we re-trimmed the load area with fabric, so that they could see all the modifications were permanent, metal and irreversible (at least without huge surgery). It's now the poshest van in town :rolleyes: (no, I don't get it, either.........) 80k for a van??

afaik, inspection of the vehicle by Revenue is a requirement for the change in taxation class. This being the case, who DIDN'T inspect that 300 already mentioned, then..............and why not??

HashSlinging

seen a commercial Touareg being pulled over last night, driver was NOT impressed. I guess they are checking them all.

Why would someone go and pay 80k for a 4x4 van, the commercial range rover disco is only 35k!

ninty9er

galwaytt wrote:

ninety9er, now that reply is at odds with that you inferred earlier.

So, 300 people have not been caught, and no one has paid a Eur126k fine.

Instead, 300 vehicles have been reg'd this way, and they are being checked. That's a huge difference. If, after checking, none of the 300 fall foul, nor that fine being levied, your inference is misleading.........

Finally, we converted a span new ML270 here for a customer. Removed all the rear accomodation (leather !!), manufactured a new steel floor and bulkhead, and WELDED it in place. It was then inspected by Revenue before we re-trimmed the load area with fabric, so that they could see all the modifications were permanent, metal and irreversible (at least without huge surgery). It's now the poshest van in town :rolleyes: (no, I don't get it, either.........) 80k for a van??

afaik, inspection of the vehicle by Revenue is a requirement for the change in taxation class. This being the case, who DIDN'T inspect that 300 already mentioned, then..............and why not??

Apologies...was actually misleading on rereading. The revenue inspect and pass them as commercials before they are reconverted to Passenger. I'd imagine this conversion process could be costly too!!!

Seth Brundle

ninty9er wrote:

Apologies...was actually misleading on rereading. The revenue inspect and pass them as commercials before they are reconverted to Passenger. I'd imagine this conversion process could be costly too!!!

It was mentioned last night that to convert them to commercial costs about €1200 and takes two days. I would think that reconverting them back for passenger use would cost maybe three or four times this - still a lot less than a 50k VRT bill!

hi5

HashSlinging wrote:

Why would someone go and pay 80k for a 4x4 van, the commercial range rover disco is only 35k!

You dont actuall pay the 80k,thats the whole idea of having it converted avoiding 30% VRT and 21% VAT if the customer is VAT registered.

80k-30%=56k (vrt is on the omsp)
56k-21%vat=€46'280
You pay €46'280 plus the welding charge plus €50 vrt.
Tint the glass and nobody on the outside knows the difference.

HashSlinging

This country is gone mad. WTF happened to the trusty transit! ... I seen a hummer last week with someone advertising their "painting and decorating" business on the side..FFS!

testicle

jmayo wrote:

Are these jeeps then insured also as commericals?
If they are and they crash carrying passengers, as a passenger car, the insurance company will not want to know.

You didn't see the news yesterday did you?

Dub13

HashSlinging wrote:

This country is gone mad. WTF happened to the trusty transit! ... I seen a hummer last week with someone advertising their "painting and decorating" business on the side..FFS!

LOL...a Celtic tiger cub in full flow,what a sight.

PaulieC

I'm not sure why PrimeTime had SIMI and Consumer Assoc. on as guests in relation to this story. The gist of the questioning was that somehow SIMI and garages were at fault for this scam. As was pointed out above, conversions from passenger to commercial and vice versa are not illegal. What is illegal is not informing the revenue of the change being made, the responsibility for which lies with the registered owner, not the garage owner and definitely not SIMI. Much as I dislike Cyril McHugh and what he stands for, SIMI were not in the wrong here.

And what did it have to do with ripping off the consumer? Surely it was the government being ripped off by the consumer in this instance?

smash

ye but surely these guys get done for the extra VRT when they bring the "commercials" in for their yearly DOE and there's seats in the back...

Seth Brundle

testicle wrote:

You didn't see the news yesterday did you?

no - why?

DonJose

I think he is refering to the judgement in the European courts. A woman who a passenger who in the back of a van was injured in a crash and was refused compensation because the insurance company said she was in an area of the van that was not designated for passengers. The courts ruled in the womans favour so insurance companies have to pay.

RedorDead

hi5 wrote:

You dont actuall pay the 80k,thats the whole idea of having it converted avoiding 30% VRT and 21% VAT if the customer is VAT registered.

80k-30%=56k (vrt is on the omsp)
56k-21%vat=€46'280
You pay €46'280 plus the welding charge plus €50 vrt.
Tint the glass and nobody on the outside knows the difference.

Touareg commercials start at €42k.

Eoin

steve06 wrote:

ye but surely these guys get done for the extra VRT when they bring the "commercials" in for their yearly DOE and there's seats in the back...

That's what I was wondering, they hardly go through the whole process every year?

I thought that people who carried out the conversion were used as an easy target. It's like BMW being blamed because someone may speed in a car they sell.

galwayTT wrote:

Instead, 300 vehicles have been reg'd this way, and they are being checked. That's a huge difference. If, after checking, none of the 300 fall foul, nor that fine being levied, your inference is misleading.........

I think there may have been 50 or so cases that had been sent to the DPP or something like that? I know that nobody has been prosecuted yet, but it wasn't a case that they hadn't found any evidence of it at all.

Mickk

HashSlinging wrote:

I seen a hummer last week with someone advertising their "painting and decorating" business on the side..FFS!

Ha its funny actually both myself and that fella you saw left school early and went to work in burger king and we both have hummers now!?
I got mine commercialised aswell, I have no kids and I don't want back seats anyway so it saved me 20ish k and loads on tax every year.

A danger that was not noted was having left hand drive with your back windows completly covered over, its not easy. If I take the cover off the window just purely for safety reasons I might be liable to be convicted!

Keith C

DonJose wrote:

I think he is refering to the judgement in the European courts. A woman who a passenger who in the back of a van was injured in a crash and was refused compensation because the insurance company said she was in an area of the van that was not designated for passengers. The courts ruled in the womans favour so insurance companies have to pay.

She was in an uninsured van and sitting on floor in the back which had no seats or seatbelts fitted and obviously hurt herself when the van was crashed. She took the case to MIBI who threw it out saying her claim was null & void, she then took them to court.
Ridiculas if your stupid enough to sit in the open space on back of van thats has no seats or seatbelts, then you should suffer the injuries.

Mc-BigE

I thought that before a vehicle leaves the SIMI dealers forecourt, it has to be registered with the VRO office and VAT has to be paid? Why are these suv /4x4's allowed to leave for the conversion garage without been registered in the first place? or do the conversion garage people go up to the north and bring down a transporter full of unregistered SUVs/4X4s?

mickjohnlong

in regards to the doing it every year for the doe people are taxing them private and dont need the doe so therefor once it has been vrtd and changed back everything is done as private i am sure alot of customers dont know this is happening its certain dealers who would not be apart of the simi

DubTony

Mc-BigE wrote:

I thought that before a vehicle leaves the SIMI dealers forecourt, it has to be registered with the VRO office and VAT has to be paid? Why are these suv /4x4's allowed to leave for the conversion garage without been registered in the first place? or do the conversion garage people go up to the north and bring down a transporter full of unregistered SUVs/4X4s?

A vehicle bought from a dealer has the necessary VRT and VAT built into the selling price. If the customer wants his SUV to be "commercialised" this job is generally done before he takes it from the dealer. The lesser VRT and VAT are paid but a business customer can reclaim the VAT quite legitimately. There's nothing illegal about any of this, and there's no point in bringing loads of them from Northern Ireland as the VRT and VAT are still payable when the vehicle is registered. Remember Irish pre-tax car prices are amongst the lowest in the EU.

smash

Mickk wrote:

Ha its funny actually both myself and that fella you saw left school early and went to work in burger king and we both have hummers now!?
I got mine commercialised aswell, I have no kids and I don't want back seats anyway so it saved me 20ish k and loads on tax every year.

A danger that was not noted was having left hand drive with your back windows completly covered over, its not easy. If I take the cover off the window just purely for safety reasons I might be liable to be convicted!

they're still a rip off, could pick one up for $40,000, get it commercialised and bring it in yourself... save yourself a hell of a lot more than 20k

David Michael

Mc-BigE wrote:

I thought that before a vehicle leaves the SIMI dealers forecourt, it has to be registered with the VRO office and VAT has to be paid? Why are these suv /4x4's allowed to leave for the conversion garage without been registered in the first place? or do the conversion garage people go up to the north and bring down a transporter full of unregistered SUVs/4X4s?

As far as I am aware the importer always arranges the conversion pre dealer delivery. When a vehicle is first brought in they are all passenger as the factories don't do commercials as such. Not on a world wide basis. Ireland = tiny market. This help as the import on Commercials from outside the EU is 20% rather than 10% on passenger. Not 100% sure about the 20%! Still awaiting clarification on that. After that a conversion is done and the vehicle is inspected by the revenue so as it meets the rear space etc criteria and a stat code is given. Then when all is well they get converted some where like NVD in batches. Then the importer has them on their systems as Commercial stock.

As far as I am aware BMW don't do commercials and there is some one importing passenger versions from the North or the UK and doing it. AND still making money! I can't remeber for the life of me who it is. Some brothers somewhere like ashbounre or summit.

You would be surprised the amount of people who ring the importers asking if they could buy rear seats.

Mickk

steve06 wrote:

they're still a rip off, could pick one up for $40,000, get it commercialised and bring it in yourself... save yourself a hell of a lot more than 20k

Yea thats what I did? The 20k is just the vrt I saved, I am not basing it on irish dealer prices, I didn't even consider buying from them...

E92

Surely converting a vehicle like this invalidates the cars warranty?
Especially as there are modifications to the back row of seat belts which makes them all but useless if the 4X4 is reconverted?

astraboy

They never mentioned:

1: VRT is against the principles of our EU membership.

2: That it seems fine for a guy to pay 50 euro VRT on a commercial vehicle, but God forbid he might want to have an SUV to bring his kids to school in. So a commercial Landcruiser pays 50 euro VRT while a guy buying one to transport his family around is seen as a killer of the environment and charged 30% of Open market selling price, which includes VAT in the calculations BTW. What a load of crap, sums this country up that you have to strip out the seatbelts and seats from your car to avoid an illegal tax. Nice one Bertie......:rolleyes:

ninty9er

astraboy wrote:

They never mentioned:

1: VRT is against the principles of our EU membership.

2: That it seems fine for a guy to pay 50 euro VRT on a commercial vehicle, but God forbid he might want to have an SUV to bring his kids to school in. So a commercial Landcruiser pays 50 euro VRT while a guy buying one to transport his family around is seen as a killer of the environment and charged 30% of Open market selling price, which includes VAT in the calculations BTW. What a load of crap, sums this country up that you have to strip out the seatbelts and seats from your car to avoid an illegal tax. Nice one Bertie......:rolleyes:

We've already had a VRT debate which you contributed to and in which I showed that VRT is NOT ILLEGAL.

Businesses supply jobs, jobs prop up the economy....suv's moving 5 miles round trip to do a school run in rush hour hammper economic growth...that's why there's a falt rate on commercials!!

Dub13

ninty9er wrote:

Businesses supply jobs, jobs prop up the economy....suv's moving 5 miles round trip to do a school run in rush hour hammper economic growth...that's why there's a falt rate on commercials!!

So its ok for a business to import a bargain but if Joe Public does it he has to pay a tax.

Do-more

It's nothing new for revenue to check up on "comercialised SUV's" back in the late 90's I uesd to import a few Jappers, every one of the SUV's I imported which were "commercialised" were checked by revenue 4-6 months after registration. One was a dawn swoop at 7am! Another guy lived in the back of beyonds, litterly miles from anywhere with the last two miles up a dirt track, his "Big Horn" was checked after 4 months and was still found to be intact!;)

peasant

ninty9er wrote:

Businesses supply jobs, jobs prop up the economy....suv's moving 5 miles round trip to do a school run in rush hour hammper economic growth...that's why there's a falt rate on commercials!!

As if ...


... all the "businessized" X5's, ML's, Q7's and Cayennes (yes, I saw a Cayenne "van" recently :eek: ) ever carried more than a briefcase and a laptop.

All they ever do is just slightly longer "school runs".


And no ...school run tanks stuck in rush hour traffic don't hamper econmic growth any more than superminis ...the lack of infrastructure and the missing alternative of public transport is what does that.

rebel.ranter

Am I correct in thinking that you have to prove that one of these commercialsed SUVs and indeed other commercial vehicles is actually used for commercial purposes? I read somewhere that in order to avail of one the benefits or commercial tax you have to be able to prove that it is not just a private mode of transport.

ninty9er

rebel.ranter wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that you have to prove that one of these commercialsed SUVs and indeed other commercial vehicles is actually used for commercial purposes? I read somewhere that in order to avail of one the benefits or commercial tax you have to be able to prove that it is not just a private mode of transport.

Yes for annual tax. there is a flaw in the system that allows vans to be VRT commercially for personal use though!!

How do you police it??? This is something which is easy to police

BRM

what about those 4 door suvs can you bring them in for €50 vrt? Surely those yokes are people carriers with back seats 4 doors and a rear flatbed?

Mickk

Mmmm don't be so sure I often have 2 or three tonnes of gym weights in the back of mine its ten times better than a transit you barely feel it at all...

peasant wrote:

As if ...


... all the "businessized" X5's, ML's, Q7's and Cayennes (yes, I saw a Cayenne "van" recently :eek: ) ever carried more than a briefcase and a laptop.

All they ever do is just slightly longer "school runs".


And no ...school run tanks stuck in rush hour traffic don't hamper econmic growth any more than superminis ...the lack of infrastructure and the missing alternative of public transport is what does that.

Mickk

If you have a flatbed of a certain size you qualify for the lower rate of 15 or 17.5% introduced for two row crew cabs.

BRM wrote:

what about those 4 door suvs can you bring them in for €50 vrt? Surely those yokes are people carriers with back seats 4 doors and a rear flatbed?

David Michael

BRM wrote:

what about those 4 door suvs can you bring them in for €50 vrt? Surely those yokes are people carriers with back seats 4 doors and a rear flatbed?

Only if it meets the requirements. The Nissan Nevara is at the 50 VRT. Most are at the lower VRT rate.

astraboy

ninty9er wrote:

We've already had a VRT debate which you contributed to and in which I showed that VRT is NOT ILLEGAL.

Businesses supply jobs, jobs prop up the economy....suv's moving 5 miles round trip to do a school run in rush hour hammper economic growth...that's why there's a falt rate on commercials!!

Well obviously your going to defend it, you have a massive FF logo in your sig!:D VRT is not illegal because the Gov says its not. How come we are fined each year by the EU and they want us to remove it?

Anyway back on topic; to me its irrevelant weather someone wants to use a landcruiser to move their family around or their tools, there should be a far fairer system. For instance, yesterday I saw a mother driving a Volvo Xc90, now she had 3 kids in the back and one in the front. If owning such a vehicle makes her life easier(more space, easier to load and unload kids, shopping etc) then why should she have to pay more then a guy that drives around with a shovel and tools in the back. They both take up the same road space and both put out the same emissions. Charging a flat rate or 50 euro vrt on commercials when any other car over 1900cc pays 30% VRT is a joke, end of.

astraboy

Mickk wrote:

If you have a flatbed of a certain size you qualify for the lower rate of 15 or 17.5% introduced for two row crew cabs.

I think 45% of the vehicle length must be commercial space, so if an misti L200 has a crew cab and the flatbed is 45% of its length then it qualifies for commercial tax I believe.

nantony98

I'd love to know what happens to the poor sod who buys an x5 only to find that it was once a van, changed back to passanger vehicle and now he owes the vrt to the taxman?
Can someone tell me if vat can be claimed back on a second hand van or is it just new ones. They seem to be listed price + VAT even on old ones.
If so, do you have to pay vat when you sell a van?

Dub13

Is it true that Taxi's still have to pay VRT...?I think I remember hearing an interview with someone who wanted to bring in a few London style black cabs,and the VRT made it uneconomical.

hiscan

nantony98 wrote:

I'd love to know what happens to the poor sod who buys an x5 only to find that it was once a van, changed back to passanger vehicle and now he owes the vrt to the taxman?
Can someone tell me if vat can be claimed back on a second hand van or is it just new ones. They seem to be listed price + VAT even on old ones.
If so, do you have to pay vat when you sell a van?

you should issue a vat receipt when selling on a second hand commercial same as a new one so the person or buisness buying the van can claim back the vat

Seth Brundle

Is there VAT on used commercials?

DubTony

kbannon wrote:

Is there VAT on used commercials?

Yup. If you're buying privately the seller should supply a vat receipt. If he's not vat registered, you could legitimately argue that the vehice is overpricced by 21%. Can't see that it would do any good though.

edit: what hiscan said.