VRT and importing.

CJhaughey

I was just reading a very interesting judgement from the High Court from last year Prodanov vs Revenue Commissioners which was a test case for the height rule, Interestingly as part of the Judgement the Judge referenced the principle of legal certainty which means the rule of law must be concise and their application must be foreseeable by those subject to them.
(Plantonol, C201/08 EU:C:2009:539, para 46)

The second paragraph is more relevant as it this principle is to be observed more strictly in the case of rules liable to entail financial consequences, in order that those concerned may know the obligations which such rules impose on them.
it follows that it is necessary that taxable persons be aware before concluding a transaction of their tax obligations. (Teleos and others EU:C:2007:548,Para 48)

Basically this shines a light on the murky way that Revenue detemine the VRT of a motorcaravan. Its not legal for the tax authorities to make up a figure out of thin air and demand that you pay it once the deal has been done.
What needs to be done is that there is a given price for VRT that is clearly accessible and understandable to a person buying a motorcaravan so they know what they will have to pay before they buy a vehicle.
It's doable for every other class of motorvehicle except Motorcaravans and as such is discriminatory and unfair.

crabbypaddy

CJhaughey wrote: »

I was just reading a very interesting judgement from the High Court from last year Prodanov vs Revenue Commissioners which was a test case for the height rule, Interestingly as part of the Judgement the Judge referenced the principle of legal certainty which means the rule of law must be concise and their application must be foreseeable by those subject to them.
(Plantonol, C201/08 EU:C:2009:539, para 46)

The second paragraph is more relevant as it this principle is to be observed more strictly in the case of rules liable to entail financial consequences, in order that those concerned may know the obligations which such rules impose on them.
it follows that it is necessary that taxable persons be aware before concluding a transaction of their tax obligations. (Teleos and others EU:C:2007:548,Para 48)

Basically this shines a light on the murky way that Revenue detemine the VRT of a motorcaravan. Its not legal for the tax authorities to make up a figure out of thin air and demand that you pay it once the deal has been done.
What needs to be done is that there is a given price for VRT that is clearly accessible and understandable to a person buying a motorcaravan so they know what they will have to pay before they buy a vehicle.
It's doable for every other class of motorvehicle except Motorcaravans and as such is discriminatory and unfair.

Can't find the full text what was the outcome?

CJhaughey

crabbypaddy wrote: »

Can't find the full text what was the outcome?

Not legal for revenue to make arbitrary rules about what is and isn't a camper,Regarding height.
Point is that EU has classification regarding what a motor caravan. Revenue can't change those rules no matter what they or mcc would like to see.

spaceHopper

So what they will do it and the cost/hassle of going to court means that they are very likely to get away with it.

CJhaughey

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/f43756525cb7f0b68025809e00503e94?OpenDocument

CJhaughey

I don't care about the height rule. What is more interesting to me is the VRT situation.

The principles discussed in that case say that if you are liable to a tax, you have to know clearly what the implications are before you make the transaction.
The fact that an individual cannot find out their VRT liability before they buy a camper and import it means that the Revenue is wrong and acting illegally.

T650

Paragraph 43 and the line “That principle requires that rules imposing financial consequences or obligations on persons must be clear and precise so that those persons may know without ambiguity precisely what their rights and obligations are and may take steps accordingly.”

CJhaughey

T650 wrote: »

Paragraph 43 and the line “That principle requires that rules imposing financial consequences or obligations on persons must be clear and precise so that those persons may know without ambiguity precisely what their rights and obligations are and may take steps accordingly.”

That's the one.
All its necessary is for Revenue to charge VRT at the invoice price.
Not hard and infinitely better than the current rigmarole.
It is already done for every other class of vehicle so why not campers?
Attempting to base it on a figure that a dealer might ask for a camper is bordering on idiocy and not realistic at all.

Del2005

CJhaughey wrote: »

That's the one.
All its necessary is for Revenue to charge VRT at the invoice price.
Not hard and infinitely better than the current rigmarole.
It is already done for every other class of vehicle so why not campers?
Attempting to base it on a figure that a dealer might ask for a camper is bordering on idiocy and not realistic at all.

Cars or bikes aren't charged VRT on invoice price. Cars are on a made up OMSP which is given to revenue by dealers, which can be appealed after payment with backup documentation, and bikes are done on cc. Yes for cars you can see the estimated price before importing but age dependant they check the VIN for extras and charge extra for them.

Alkers

Can't wait to hear how that guy gets on insuring that van! Fair play to him for challenging it also.

crabbypaddy

Simona1986 wrote: »

Can't wait to hear how that guy gets on insuring that van! Fair play to him for challenging it also.

Well if he was prepared to go to the high court against the revenue I'm sure he'll have no difficulty contacting the Insurance Federation if he has any problems

CJhaughey

Del2005 wrote: »

Cars or bikes aren't charged VRT on invoice price. Cars are on a made up OMSP which is given to revenue by dealers, which can be appealed after payment with backup documentation, and bikes are done on cc. Yes for cars you can see the estimated price before importing but age dependant they check the VIN for extras and charge extra for them.

Yes I know that but at least with a car or bike you have a reasonably clear example of tax liability before you make the transaction.
Made up or not the calculator shows with a degree of accuracy what you are liable for in terms of VRT.
Bikes are a per CC basis, again you know what your liabilities are before you buy.

I have imported both bikes and cars and I knew when I went to the NCT and previously the Revenue officers pretty much to the cent what I would be paying.

If tomorrow I went and bought a 4 berth A-class in Germany could I predict with any accuracy what I would be paying? I think not.

Prodanov

Hi all,

It was me who won the case against Revenue. Just wanted to clarify that I got the vehicle from the U.K. as a 7-seater and converted it here myself. I think that it is possible to know in advance how much a conversion would cost when done by conversion specialists or when it refers to a self-made conversion as mine. The issue however is more polarised: the vehicle is either a motor caravan or not. Then the VRT is charged as a percentage according to this. Actually, the VRT itself should be challenged in Court as it is a bona fide tax on imports from the EU --- no matter how this tax liability is disguised, it is still illegal in my opinion.
In my case, I had an SQI certificate ("suitably qualified individual" -- both the term and its usage were coined by Revenue exactly for this purpose), saying that my vehicle was a motor caravan. Revenue then decided to ignore the SQI declaration (which they, themselves, require) by saying that the SQI was my agent, paid by me, and, basically, saying what I wanted him to say. They eroded their own system for conversion certification and, instead, decided to operate on the basis of photo-evidence, phone calls to pseudo-specialists, and Revenue's free interpretation of EU law. Arbitrariness and ad-hockery in their decisions came by the truckload and, yet, they decided to ignore counter-examples provided by me. Revenue found themselves in many comic situations and winning in the High Court was within reach of a 10-year old. I should say though that I lost at the level of Appeal Commissioner --- he also decided that the SQI declaration could be ignored as it was not enshrined in law and he also gave his own interpretation of EU law. Worse still, he formulated himself for the High Court my grievance against his own decision --- in stark violation of the principle of natural justice. That gagged me, I rebutted in vain, and my gambit in the High Court had to be: "The case, as it is stated, is not my case"...
Regarding the insurance, it will not cause any problems. The motor caravan club of Ireland told me that they "would not touch my vehicle even with a barge pole", but I will get immense pleasure of insuring the vehicle through them via the Declined Cases Agreement operated by Insurance Ireland. My vehicle is an US produced Ford Econoline, the very first registered in Ireland. Believe it or not, but the NCTS requested from me a certificate explaining what type of vehicle that was. Neither Ford Ireland, nor the Gardai had that in their database. After chasing the wind for two months, things moved forward with a letter signed by Lisa Ford from Ford...

CJhaughey

Hello Dr Prodanov,

I tip my hat to you Sir, these cases need to be taken to court but most people are reluctant to take on Revenue as an arm of the government for reasons that are understandable.
I still think the VRT is unquantifiable, I have spoken to dealers that have had experiences that show that VRT with regard to Motorcaravans is unquantifiable.
Two identical 'vans brought in and registered a month apart had VRT prices vary by over 1k.
That makes a nonsense of the whole principle of transparency.

Thanks for coming on here and clarifying the situation.

Alkers

Bravo sir. Would you care to do up a post (maybe on a separate thread) detailing the process you went through or are going through in relation to insurance?

crabbypaddy

I faced a similar issue with a 7 seater japanese that had been registered as a camper in England. I got so stressed about it I gave up sold it to a friend who brought it back to England.

Prodanov wrote: »

Actually, the VRT itself should be challenged in Court as it is a bona fide tax on imports from the EU --- no matter how this tax liability is disguised, it is still illegal in my opinion.

A couple of importers have pursued this in the courts, one case dragged on for over 20 years, a clear case of the system obstructing justice.

Prodanov wrote: »

I will get immense pleasure of insuring the vehicle through them via the Declined Cases Agreement operated by Insurance Ireland.

Well done keep us informed, if we had more people like you there would be a lot less red tape and arbitrary nonsense.

Prodanov

I will post the details about the insurance as soon as I get one -- it will be through the declined cases agreement.