VRT battle over

Capri

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/car-importers-vrt-case-fails-29133838.html

Car importer's VRT case fails

A USED car importer has failed in a bid to force the Government to reduce the taxes on cars here
The car importer had claimed in a €130m High Court action that the Revenue Commissioners' scheme for assessing vehicle registration tax was unfair and arbitrary.Used Car Importers of Ireland Ltd (UCII), Centre Park Road, Cork, claimed VRT discriminates in favour of the domestic car trade and against importers by imposing artificially high values on imported used cars.Set up in 1988 by car repair businessmen Niall O'Dowling and Fintan Riordan, after they noticed an unmet demand for quality used cars in the Irish market, UCII claimed its business was decimated when VRT was brought in in 1993, changing the way imported cars were taxed.

The importers claimed the way VRT was calculated on their imports was, among other things, secretive and lacking in transparency. Its ambition of becoming a major car importer was not achieved because it could not calculate VRT in advance, unlike under the old system, and because the VRT system was overvalued.

Market share

The company's experts told the court the estimated loss of opportunity to maintain its pre-1993 share of the market between 1993 and 2009 was around €130m.

The action against Finance Minister Michael Noonan, the Revenue Commissioners, Ireland and the attorney general ran for 33 days in the High Court last year.

As well as damages for loss of opportunity, UCII sought an injunction requiring the publication of values of new and used cars for the purpose of calculating VRT.

Yesterday, Judge Roderick Murphy said the UCII case must fail.

The judge said the calculation of loss by UCII's experts was based on the landed cost of each imported car whereas the legislation entitled Revenue to relate the tax to the open-market selling price of the vehicle as well as to the car sales guide as used by the main car dealers.

UCII's expert evidence was also based on an assumption that the company would maintain its market share when the evidence was to the contrary, the judge said.

The court heard last year that UCII brought its proceedings in 1995.

Following several years of seeking disclosure of documents needed for the case, it began in March 2012.

Costs in the case will be decided next week. :o

trevorbrady

so the case failed because of assumptions around the value of the compensation. Was there any ruling about the actual "meat" of the case, i.e. the bits you've highlighted in red? If the action was taken purely on point of principle and with no mention of compo, I wonder how it would have gone?

Grimreaper666

From what i've heard the whole VRT thing is an illegal tax on the Irish motorist that the government are happy to implement. Even though the EU impose a fine on the Irish government for having VRT they still make money out of it. It's bloody unfair if you ask me when you consider the ludicrous road tax and taxes already on fuel.
I honestly think an appeal or a case relating to how unjust this tax is really needs to be launched for all our sakes and this whole farce needs to be blown out of the water.
I believe there have been some successful cases relating to reclaiming VRT on the grounds that it is an illegal tax but those who won have probably had to sign a gagging order of sorts.

bbsrs

Grimreaper666 wrote: »

From what i've heard the whole VRT thing is an illegal tax on the Irish motorist that the government are happy to implement. Even though the EU impose a fine on the Irish government for having VRT they still make money out of it. It's bloody unfair if you ask me when you consider the ludicrous road tax and taxes already on fuel.
I honestly think an appeal or a case relating to how unjust this tax is really needs to be launched for all our sakes and this whole farce needs to be blown out of the water.
I believe there have been some successful cases relating to reclaiming VRT on the grounds that it is an illegal tax but those who won have probably had to sign a gagging order of sorts.

Isn't there an on going case in the European court with Sinn Féin MEP, Bairbre de Brún challenging vrt?should be due back in court in the near future if I recall correctly.
Also a man in Donegal won a VRT case last year http://www.donegaldaily.com/2012/07/17/fire-your-solicitor-call-from-donegal-man-who-won-vrt-case/ .

w124man

A registration tax based on the value of a vehicle is not illegal Im afraid. A pain in the ass but not illegal. Finland and Belgium are but two other countries that do the same!

macplaxton

The Netherlands (BPM).

I think Portugal does too.

skyline33

This VRT challenge is not finished , it is a 2 stage process . The fact that a single judge who is retiring next week made a negative decision , is not the end of the road . Remember the Aquatic centre case, they lost all the high court applications and won in the Supreme Court . The directors of UCII have spent 18 years fighting this case , and obviously believe in their case . Even the dogs in the street know VRT is complete bull . This case I'm sure will be appealed , we should support the individuals . The EU has no interst in the rights of Irish citizens and are powerless to intervene in Irish politics . We as citizens of the EU have been denied the advantages on the single European market for free trade and the ability to purchase cars for cheaper prices in other member states . I hope that if the Supreme court goes against the Irish Government , and the court shows that the both the government protected the market against compedition and the distributors of new cars were given preferential treatment and special advantages, that both the government and the new car distributors are in a position to rebate all Irish consumers the excessive prices charged and paid on both new and used imports since 1993 , due to the complete lack of transparency and discrimination . The future of new sales is the Internet , we do not need 12M palaces to sell cars .

Capri

I think that this 'recession' (for us but not the highly paid politicans :mad: ) will slow down VRT takings . I avoid paying VRT by buying Irish - I never buy a new car nor import one so I don't directly pay it, someone else 'takes the hit' on my behalf and then they sell at quite a loss. My latest aquisition is a 09 E class size car for €5k , I bought my E430 and my S320 for way below the market/import prices by just being very patient and pouncing when the right motor showed up - lucky I had the cash under the bed at the time :P:P ( Considering the w/end Cyprus situation, it's the safest place to keep it :eek: )
Secret to beating VRT = PATIENCE and ....

( Looking worldwide we actually have the cheapest s/h cars on the planet - IF we could find intl buyers to take them off our hands )

rugbyman

Capri said
Looking worldwide we actually have the cheapest s/h cars on the planet - IF we could find intl buyers to take them off our hands .

This is very true. we are currently sifting through (and indeed crushing) the flotsam and jetsam of the Tiger.

in ten years there will not be many ten year old cheap "floats"

Rugbyman

Dades

The government are so completely screwed for cash there is no way there'll be a change to VRT no matter how "illegal" it is. And Europe aren't interested in free trade as much as they are interested in getting paid back their bailouts - which requires tax, tax and more tax.

Yes, it completely sucks that you can't just buy a car somewhere in Europe and drive it home, especially since the way they've taxed it is on shaky legal ground. But no amount of gnashing of teeth is going to change things.

Be thankful we still have a €200 vintage category at all, I say.

Seweryn

Capri wrote: »

(Looking worldwide we actually have the cheapest s/h cars on the planet - IF we could find intl buyers to take them off our hands )

True, but who wants all these heaps of junk with no service history and with tons of problems anywhere in the world? An equivalent ten or 15-year old Irish car is a lot cheaper than the same model in Germany, but the average car in Germany is probably better value still.

Unless you have enough patience and hold on until the right car pops up for sale.

bbsrs

Capri wrote: »

( Looking worldwide we actually have the cheapest s/h cars on the planet - IF we could find intl buyers to take them off our hands )

Cheaper than our nearest neighbours? Other than anything that is liable for high motor tax the uk is far cheaper.

macplaxton

Yeah, I don't know what planet people are on or what they're smokin'

Mainland UK is cheap as chips for motors. Yes, there's plenty of tat around, but they don't tend to have trees growning through them with an owner thinking they're worth thousands....

jerseyjohn

VRT is illegal under article (110 Taxation) of the TFEU on the following grounds .
If the tax applied to the imported car exceeds the residual duty incorporated in the domestic car then it breaches (article 110 Taxation). The E.C.J ( European Court Of Justice) has found Denmark. Portugal. Greece. and many more going back year guilty of breaching Article 110.

Jersey john

unkel

jerseyjohn wrote: »

If the tax applied to the imported car exceeds the residual duty incorporated in the domestic car then it breaches (article 110 Taxation).

But this is not the case

VRT is based on OMSP (this is the value of a comparable domestic car, including the residual duty in it)

So by definition, it never exceeds it!

Dades

jerseyjohn wrote: »

The E.C.J ( European Court Of Justice) has found Denmark. Portugal. Greece. and many more going back year guilty of breaching Article 110.

What came of that finding? I know Portugal at least still has a big tax according to a Portuguese buddy of mine.

jerseyjohn

The E.C.J. has repeatedly stated
That a system of taxation should be capable of guaranteeing that the tax due on a second-hand vehicle transferred from another Member State does not exceed ,even if only in certain cases ,the amount of the "residual tax" incorporated in the value of similar vehicles already registered in the national territory.

Case law
Nadasdi
Commission V Denmark
Nunes Tadeu
Gomes Valente
Commission V Greece
All the above were found guilty and in breach of Article 90 (now Article 110) there are plenty more cases if you require

jerseyjohn

The E.C.J. has stated on many occasions
That a system of taxation should be capable of guaranteeing that the tax due on a second-hand vehicle transferred from another Member State does not exceed ,even if only in certain cases, the amount of the "residual tax" incorporated in the value of similar vehicles already registered in the national territory.

E.U case law

Commission v Denmark Commission v Greece Gomes Valente Nunes Tadeu and many more . They were all found in Breach of Article 90 (Now Article 110) in relation to VRT.

jerseyjohn

Anyone out there know if UCII are appealing their land mark case re VRT last Friday 15 March in the high court

jerseyjohn

unkel wrote: »

But this is not the case

VRT is based on OMSP (this is the value of a comparable domestic car, including the residual duty in it)

So by definition, it never exceeds it!

If VRT is on the OMSP that would be tax on a tax double taxation Would that be legal. The OMSP has already vrt plus Vat included in its price

pmac086

Whilst I do sympathise with our learned friend, I thing we must go back to the original import tax which was Customs and Excise duty based which was replaced by VRT , the beauty of the old tax regime was that the band for calculation was 5 to 7 years for a vehicle so naturally everyone brought in a five year old car ( same tax as a 7 year old car)
the change to VRT than calculated import or Registration tax based on a year and month and was callculated on the OMSP ( open market selling price) .
UCII sued the state for an tax system that was not transparent in its calculation but did not get to the meat of the situation which is that the callculation of NEW cars was based on the pre PDI value which can be as much as 1500 euro and that this "allowance"was not passed onto the used cars. ( rumour had it that it was agreed on the dealer buying price)
I feel wait and see how the ruling on costs goes as I do feel that a settlement has been decided that ensure that the two lade in UCII do not loose their balls altogether as in fairness it took some some balls to run a 16 year old case against the state ( even with a no win no fee arrangement)

skyline33 wrote: »

This VRT challenge is not finished , it is a 2 stage process . The fact that a single judge who is retiring next week made a negative decision , is not the end of the road . Remember the Aquatic centre case, they lost all the high court applications and won in the Supreme Court . The directors of UCII have spent 18 years fighting this case , and obviously believe in their case . Even the dogs in the street know VRT is complete bull . This case I'm sure will be appealed , we should support the individuals . The EU has no interst in the rights of Irish citizens and are powerless to intervene in Irish politics . We as citizens of the EU have been denied the advantages on the single European market for free trade and the ability to purchase cars for cheaper prices in other member states . I hope that if the Supreme court goes against the Irish Government , and the court shows that the both the government protected the market against compedition and the distributors of new cars were given preferential treatment and special advantages, that both the government and the new car distributors are in a position to rebate all Irish consumers the excessive prices charged and paid on both new and used imports since 1993 , due to the complete lack of transparency and discrimination . The future of new sales is the Internet , we do not need 12M palaces to sell cars .

pmac086

VRT should and will be replaced by Carbon tax or even more fairly a tax ( yes more) on fuel, as this would be the fairest as those who burn more fuel will contribute more
It will ensure the high mileage cars opt for the most fuel efficent and the under 5000 Kms per year can buy their smokers ( V12 classics)
When eventually the state can roll out a proper electrical system for EV vehicles then we can move properly to electrical cars.

In the meantime will some car manufacturer please bring out an electrical car with a small diesel "donkey engine"for charging the batteries when the cars has reached 80% of its range until it gets to a fill station and can be charged to 80% in 5 minuets.

It is a third generation development , were not just there yet !!!!!

pmac086

jerseyjohn wrote: »

VRT is illegal under article (110 Taxation) of the TFEU on the following grounds .
If the tax applied to the imported car exceeds the residual duty incorporated in the domestic car then it breaches (article 110 Taxation). The E.C.J ( European Court Of Justice) has found Denmark. Portugal. Greece. and many more going back year guilty of breaching Article 110.

Jersey john

Go further , it should be illegal to put a tax on a tax which happens all the time.
Bring in a car from outside the EU ( japan) pay 10% duty ( self imposed by the Japs) and the euro allow the VAT be charged on top of the duty ( tax on tax) :rolleyes:

Agricola

Ridiculous. It's only a European Union when it suits the bureaucrats.

rugbyman

pmac086 wrote: »

Go further , it should be illegal to put a tax on a tax which happens all the time.
Bring in a car from outside the EU ( japan) pay 10% duty ( self imposed by the Japs) and the euro allow the VAT be charged on top of the duty ( tax on tax) :rolleyes:

P mac , I think this is normal enough ,(tax on tax) . wine has exise(tax) added then vat on the whole lot, prob same with petrol and diesel

rugbyman

not in favour ,just explaining

Esel

See my (possibly confusing) post on how the VRT rate is not clearly stated, to say the least.

pmac086

Esel wrote: »

See my (possibly confusing) post on how the VRT rate is not clearly stated, to say the least.

VRT on new cars is based on the declared market value as advertised by the manufacturer.
This then is called OMSP ( open market selling price)
OMSP includes the Manufacturers cost , Distributor margin, Dutys if any and Vat,
And the percentage of VRT paid is calculated based on the emissions , so really VRT has become an Emissions Tax based on the OMSP

Esel

pmac086 wrote: »

VRT on new cars is based on the declared market value as advertised by the manufacturer.
This then is called OMSP ( open market selling price)
OMSP includes the Manufacturers cost , Distributor margin, Dutys if any and Vat,
And the percentage of VRT paid is calculated based on the emissions , so really VRT has become an Emissions Tax based on the OMSP

You said "OMSP includes the Manufacturer' cost , Distributor margin, Duty if any and VAT". You left out the fact that the OMSP also includes VRT. That was the point of my post.

Also, your statement below is wrong, to say the least...

VRT on new cars is based on the declared market value as advertised by the manufacturer.
This then is called OMSP ( open market selling price)

skyline33

Esel wrote: »

You said "OMSP includes the Manufacturer' cost , Distributor margin, Duty if any and VAT". You left out the fact that the OMSP also includes VRT. That was the point of my post.

Also, your statement below is wrong, to say the least...

I regret to disagree with your comments , the comments made by pmc086 are correct . Under the 1992 Finance Act the distributors of new cars were allowed to declare their own values , that unique value was described as OMSP , further defined as the expected selling price of the NEW vehicle .

Pre 1993 The Oireachtas were also told the OMSP would be 94% of the RRSP , or, 6% discount .

In reality what happened was that the distributors decided they could not work on 6% discount , and declared their values to Revenue at less 10% discount .

Seems small the additional discount 4% , but when you realise that 2.5m category A cars were sold since 1993 , this 4% equals a tax loss to the State of upwards of 2 Billion Euro .

To make matters worse in addition , top secret concessions were granted to the Distributors by the government pre 1993 , one ( there were others ) of those concessions were Dealer and Related charges , these charges were exempt from VRT .

To prove and back up my point take note of all the NEW car advertisements , these adds specifically quote NEW car prices are excluding dealer and related charges .

There is no cap , or, limit on these charges some can be as high as € 1,500 per car , VW advertise the Polo as €750 , but with no upper limit who knows what is charged . Both Distributor charges the dealer , the Dealer charges the customer , endless , and the consumer gets screwed

This is an additional TAX loss to the state , alarmingly every vehicle sold in the Irish State since 1993 , and I as say every , is because this applied to commercial vehicles as well .

The real reality is that between all the concessions granted by the Irish Government the Distributors were only declaring the Wholesale price , there has been no VRT paid on the margin made between the wholesale and the retail price for every NEW vehicle sold in Ireland since 1993 . Tax loss of in the area of 3.5 Billion Euro upwards .

The Oireachtas were not told of the secret concessions , nor were they notified of the additional 4% taken by the Distributors .

The pricing policy structure in 1993 was advertised as transparent and OPEN BOOK POICY . This certainly did not materialise , the pricing structure of NEW cars is shrouded in Secrecy protected by the Government .

pmac086

Unfortunately Skyline is correct, in a nutshell when you purchase your new car for 20K from Japan or Korea
VRT @ 25% 5,000
VAT @ 23% 3,740
Duty @ 10% 650 ( based on distributor invoice)
Total 9390 is Taxes Wow!

I do however understand Esel's point, VRT is put on top of the OMSP whereas VAT is inclusive in the retail price
I keep using OMSP as this is the declared retail price by the distributors to the revenue for a new car , it is not to be confused with the actual retail price which as our learned friend has already advised can be as high as 1,500 more ( Subaru )

hi5

My understanding was that the OMSP really only came about because of second hand and new personal imports having their invoices 'doctored' to show a smaller amount and hence paying less VRT.
Its a petty system and based on the assumption that everyone is a scammer.

pmac086

The old Excise system was based on invoice value the VRT was based on New car values and depreciation tables for used cars hence the term OMSP,

skyline33

The pricing structure of New cars is confusing to the public . The use of words that do not reflect a true meaning . Hence the following example of the NEW car structure .

In the following example the vehicle is declared to the revenue at 18,000 for VRT purposes , but the customer is quoted 21,500 . Here there is a difference of 3,500 @ 25% = 875 tax loss ( that is providing the customer pays 21,500 for the vehicle )

The second point is that the Dealer margin in general is equal to 10% of the RRSP , so by allowing a discount of 10% you are taking a sum equal to the dealer margin out of the equation for the assessment of VRT tax , which means that the tax is based only on the wholesale price or delivery price to the dealer .

OMSP = 18,000 ( VRT Rate 25% = € 4,500 )
Less 10% = 2,000 ( Dealer Discount used to define OMSP )
RRSP = 20,000
1,500 ( Dealer and related charges )
21,500 OTR ( on the road price )

Esel

pmac086 wrote: »

I do however understand Esel's point, VRT is put on top of the OMSP whereas VAT is inclusive in the retail price

I think you (and skyline33) do not understand the point I made in my post above (and my original linked post here), which is that the OMSP includes VRT.

So, to re-state an example in simple terms:

You are importing an old car (but not 30+ years old) which attracts a VRT rate of 36%.

Let us assume it attracts the minimum Revenue-set OMSP of €2000.

So, you need to pay €720 in VRT.

However, the ex-VRT value of the car is (€2000 - €720) i.e. €1280.

Therefore, the VRT mark-up is (720/1280)*100 which is 56.25%.

So, for (even a new) car that attracts a stated VRT rate of 36%, the actual VRT charged is 56.25% of VRT-exclusive price.

I challenge anyone to refute the above.

John Dough

I love you guyz with all the calculations and permutations on this VRT lark but when are the E.U. competition authority or whoever going to do something about it when millions of Euro are going in to the government coffers and the joe public continues to be screwed by a unjust and unfair tax .

The answer I am afraid is never !! FREE TRADE ACROSS BORDERS is just a joke and it is on us!!!:D:D

P.S. Buy Irish cars only and stop the revenue flow from UK imports .

corktina

what Irish cars? they are all imports and all attract VRT.....did you open an old thread just to say that?

shagman

Obviously he means only buying TMC Costins, Shamrocks and DKWs, it's make the M50 more interesting anyway

Tzar Chasm

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuckit

I was eagerly anticipating further developmentsin the case

turbocab

So now that we have property taxes ,water charges like the rest of Eu, can we now have new cars at the same price as our fellow Eu members,

corktina

yes of course, so long as you are happy for tax to go up in some other area...or to have a reduction of services. Have a look at what our UK friends pay in Council Tax perhaps

Dades

It is a farce of a tax but it's one of the government's cash cows.

There's more chance of a pole dance from Michael Noonan than that ever changing.

galwaytt

Esel wrote: »

I think you (and skyline33) do not understand the point I made in my post above (and my original linked post here), which is that the OMSP includes VRT.

So, to re-state an example in simple terms:

You are importing an old car (but not 30+ years old) which attracts a VRT rate of 36%.

Let us assume it attracts the minimum Revenue-set OMSP of €2000.

So, you need to pay €720 in VRT.

However, the ex-VRT value of the car is (€2000 - €720) i.e. €1280.

Therefore, the VRT mark-up is (720/1280)*100 which is 56.25%.

So, for (even a new) car that attracts a stated VRT rate of 36%, the actual VRT charged is 56.25% of VRT-exclusive price.

I challenge anyone to refute the above.

Nope, can't refute it: you have a good point.

There again, that's why VRT is know as an 'ad valorem' tax. See here: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/4861/ad-valorem-tax

Car99

corktina wrote: »

yes of course, so long as you are happy for tax to go up in some other area...or to have a reduction of services. Have a look at what our UK friends pay in Council Tax perhaps

UK Council tax is collected for services provided to a resident in that area. VRT goes into the big pot of taxes collected and is not spent only on motoring related services . So fair enough tax can go up in another area and hit everyone instead of unfairly attacking the people who need to have a car because the sub standard public transport system in not a viable alternative for most.

corktina

well in that case culchies should pay a lesser rate of tax ..I'm all for that, but then again, it means city dwellers must pay more or again services must be cut or more tax charged in other areas.

At the end of the day it's the job of Government to make these decisions, if you don't like it, vote for someone who will charge the way you want it. If they don't win, that's Democracy.

turbocab

corktina wrote: »

yes of course, so long as you are happy for tax to go up in some other area...or to have a reduction of services. Have a look at what our UK friends pay in Council Tax perhaps

How about reducing social welfare to the 80000 wasters in this country who have never worked a day in there life. Where else in the world would you get 188 euros for never working a day in your life forever,only in this social welfare state

NIMAN

There have been quite a few checkpoints up here around the Donegal-Derry border, and I know of a few people who have been nabbed by Customs.

However, I am still hearing about how this tax is illegal from those who are still driving NI cars whilst living in RoI, but if its an illegal tax then why are people still paying the fines and converting their cars once caught?

I feel that there is nothing in this at all that would stand up in court if a car owner decided to take it that far. Customs are well within their rights to confiscate or fine people who continue to break the law. The only thing I don't agree with is their heavy-handed tactics, which often get them a bad press. There has also been reports on radio recently of them accusing tourists who hired cars in NI and drove into Donegal of being Irish residents! Thats a bit OTT if true.

Anyway, can anyone update this whole "VRT is illegal" debate. There is a FB page about it, but to be honest most of the people who would frequent it wouldn't have a clue what they are chatting about. They just want to have their cake and eat it.

pmac086

NIMAN wrote: »

There have been quite a few checkpoints up here around the Donegal-Derry border, and I know of a few people who have been nabbed by Customs.

However, I am still hearing about how this tax is illegal from those who are still driving NI cars whilst living in RoI, but if its an illegal tax then why are people still paying the fines and converting their cars once caught?

I feel that there is nothing in this at all that would stand up in court if a car owner decided to take it that far. Customs are well within their rights to confiscate or fine people who continue to break the law. The only thing I don't agree with is their heavy-handed tactics, which often get them a bad press. There has also been reports on radio recently of them accusing tourists who hired cars in NI and drove into Donegal of being Irish residents! Thats a bit OTT if true


Anyway, can anyone update this whole "VRT is illegal" debate. There is a FB page about it, but to be honest most of the people who would frequent it wouldn't have a clue what they are chatting about. They just want to have their cake and eat it.

VRT replaced Customs and Excise and as agreed with the EEC ( as then it was called ) would be replaced with a tax based on the open market selling price and Co emissions.
This has been contested costing millions by UCII in Cork , but to no avail.
This has also been discussed to death, please familiarize yourself with all the past information.
The tax is needed now more then ever to try to fill the hole somewhat caused by Bankers Regulators and the like, IF VRT was to go it would be immediately replaced with a tax that motorists would still have to pay.
One question still remains, why is the VRT callculated on top of the OMSP instead of within it as the car value includes VRT.
on top OMSP 5000 + 25% VRT = 1,250
within OMSP 5000 inc 25% VRT = 1,000

corktina

As a generalism, the most VRT is paid by the people paying the most for a vehicle and thus presumably best able to afford it.

pmac086

corktina wrote: »

As a generalism, the most VRT is paid by the people paying the most for a vehicle and thus presumably best able to afford it.

I wouldn't rush around saying that, !!
A lot of people need a car for transport and do not have a choice, the VRT is a hefty tax on top of other hefty taxes so in reality 50 to 60% of the car you buy is just TAX.:(

corktina

You can always buy old bangers and thus pay the bare minimum of VRT. It an elective tax. Some one who chooses not to have a car pays nothing at all.

pmac086

corktina wrote: »

You can always buy old bangers and thus pay the bare minimum of VRT. It an elective tax. Some one who chooses not to have a car pays nothing at all.

Your missing the point, and a banger wont pass the NCT, I give up