€5,000 underpaid motor tax

Chippy01

From todays local paper ....

IMG_20170704_120218486.jpg

boardsuser1

This will only add insult to injury then.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/new-fuel-rules-will-drive-up-car-prices-and-motor-tax-costs-1.3105821

Blut2

If the ownership was transferred back and forth between him and his brother should that not have wiped out the back tax?

Chippy01

Blut2 wrote: »

If the ownership was transferred back and forth between him and his brother should that not have wiped out the back tax?

But it was switched back and forth to avoid paying any tax ....... and they got caught

Kimbot

Blut2 wrote: »

If the ownership was transferred back and forth between him and his brother should that not have wiped out the back tax?

Yes but also proves they are scamming the system by not paying tax at all and still driving the car.

kona

Chippy01 wrote: »

But it was switched back and forth to avoid paying any tax ....... and they got caught

And why cant you do this? Plenty of people are paying far far too much tax as it is.
Most is pissed away on the cant work wont work brigade.

mahamageehad

Meh. They tried to scam, and they got caught. The system (eventually) works.
If you drive the car, it needs tax. The transferring over and back used to work, but now cars have to be declared off the road in advance, otherwise the owner is liable for tax. If these types of cretins weren't at this shïte, we'd all pay less tax.

Blut2

Chippy01 wrote: »

But it was switched back and forth to avoid paying any tax ....... and they got caught

It can't be proven that it was switched back and forth to avoid tax, though. Its perfectly legal to sell a car to a family member, and buy it back at a later time, multiple times. And each time the back tax has to get cleared.

I'd imagine a god solicitor will get that 5000eur reduced to whatever the amount of months is since the last ownership change and clearance of back tax, so probably down to a few hundred euro.

mahamageehad wrote: »

Meh. They tried to scam, and they got caught. The system (eventually) works.
If you drive the car, it needs tax. The transferring over and back used to work, but now cars have to be declared off the road in advance, otherwise the owner is liable for tax. If these types of cretins weren't at this shïte, we'd all pay less tax.

This is incorrect. If a car has been untaxed for a number of months (even without any declaration off the route), the unpaid back tax is cleared when the ownership changes. The new owner is not liable for any unpaid backtax.

Cordell

The new owner is not liable for any unpaid backtax

No, the old owner is. Not being usually enforced does not mean that the old owner doesn't still owe the unpaid tax.

mahamageehad

Blut2 wrote: »

...

This is incorrect. If a car has been untaxed for a number of months (even without any declaration off the route), the unpaid back tax is cleared when the ownership changes. The new owner is not liable for any unpaid backtax.

The new owner only pays motor tax from the beginning of the month that they become the registered owner, you're right on that. Looks like neither of these boys paid any tax at any point. I've yet to see a link that confirms that the "unpaid back tax is cleared". Presumably the fact that they kept swapping it amongst themselves is how they were caught. They tried to exploit a loophole, and they failed.

CiniO

Cordell wrote: »

No, the old owner is. Not being usually enforced does not mean that the old owner doesn't still owe the unpaid tax.

No. The old owner is not due back tax.
There is no obligation to tax a vehicle.
If you don't tax it, it doesn't mean you automatically become due back tax.
You only become due back tax when you intend to tax vehicle which was untaxed prior to that.
On selling untaxed vehicle there is no back tax due. That's the law.

So no... Old owner is not due back tax after selling untaxed vehicle

bmwguy

I don't normally admit this but I sold a car to my dog at my parents address last October then bought it back to clear 3 months arrears when I wasn't driving it but never declared off the road. It was about 305 euro I think.

None of my family would put their name to this. My mother was flipping when she found out she thought the guards would be knocking down the door in a dawn raid. But nothing ever happened. I just did it for the laugh. I could have put any name down at that address.
What are they going to do? Arrest the dog?

It did raise questions when I sold it in March because i told the buyer I had it 3 years which was technically true but log book said different. He just laughed.

CiniO

mahamageehad wrote: »

The new owner only pays motor tax from the beginning of the month that they become the registered owner, you're right on that. Looks like neither of these boys paid any tax at any point. I've yet to see a link that confirms that the "unpaid back tax is cleared". Presumably the fact that they kept swapping it amongst themselves is how they were caught. They tried to exploit a loophole, and they failed.

Unpaid back tax couldn't be cleared as there was no back tax due.

You only become due to pay arrears if you tax the car which was untaxed in your name for more than a month.

Person in the article was caught driving untaxed vehicle and that's probably what they will be charged.

I can't see a way of judge proving they should have paid back tax in between all ownership changes without proving that car actually driven.
And how can anyone prove it now that car was driven over last 7 years?

Blut2

mahamageehad wrote: »

The new owner only pays motor tax from the beginning of the month that they become the registered owner, you're right on that. Looks like neither of these boys paid any tax at any point. I've yet to see a link that confirms that the "unpaid back tax is cleared". Presumably the fact that they kept swapping it amongst themselves is how they were caught. They tried to exploit a loophole, and they failed.

Its not a loophole, though. Selling your car to a relative is a perfectly legitimate way of clearing any tax arrears due on it. Presuming they do want to buy it off you, of course, cough.

As I said, a good solicitor will get this brought down to them just owing whatever number of months the vehicle wasn't taxed in the current owners name - so probably just the most recently few. They'll probably pay less than 500eur for this, after saving 5000eur by selling the vehicle back and forth between themselves over the years. I wouldnt count that as a failure personally, I'd say they've gamed the system fairly well.

GhostyMcGhost

Blut2 wrote: »

I'd imagine a god solicitor will get that 5000eur reduced

I heard he performs miracles

F34

CiniO wrote: »

Unpaid back tax couldn't be cleared as there was no back tax due.

You only become due to pay arrears if you tax the car which was untaxed in your name for more than a month.

Person in the article was caught driving untaxed vehicle and that's probably what they will be charged.

I can't see a way of judge proving they should have paid back tax in between all ownership changes without proving that car actually driven.
And how can anyone prove it now that car was driven over last 7 years?

They had insurance surprisingly. If the car isn't been driven it has to be declared off the road so no need to prove the car was driven, they failed to do this so are liable for the tax in that period.

ShadowHearth

Ah... It had to be Lithuanian fella to do this. :pac:

Happy he got cought.

I always flash lights to warn when there is speed camera on the road, but if there is a checkpoint, then I do nothing. The reason we pay so much for tax is mostly, because pricks like this dont pay.

Doubt he will be done for anything more then a few hundred quid.

CiniO

F34 wrote: »

They had insurance surprisingly. If the car isn't been driven it has to be declared off the road so no need to prove the car was driven, they failed to do this so are liable for the tax in that period.

Sorry, but you are wrong here.
If car isn't being driven it doesn't have to be declared off the road.
Off road declaration is an option available, not an obligation.
It's handy to declare the car off the road if you are not using it, as then in case you want to tax it in the future, you don't need to pay arrears, but there is no law forcing such declaration and therefore there's nothing illegal in not declaring the car off the road if its left unused and untaxed.

CiniO

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Ah... It had to be Lithuanian fella to do this. :pac:

Happy he got cought.

I always flash lights to warn when there is speed camera on the road, but if there is a checkpoint, then I do nothing. The reason we pay so much for tax is mostly, because pricks like this dont pay.

Doubt he will be done for anything more then a few hundred quid.

Do you really think that if compliance on tax was 100% we would be paying less?

I agree with you though on second part - he won't be done for anything more than few hundred quid.

frozenfrozen

once again it's cheaper to break the law even if you get caught red handed

CiniO

It always was when it comes to Motortax.

Sure gards were always happy to give 60 quid fines for non display to people who didn't bother paying tax worth over a grand a year.

F34

CiniO wrote: »

Sorry, but you are wrong here.
If car isn't being driven it doesn't have to be declared off the road.
Off road declaration is an option available, not an obligation.
It's handy to declare the car off the road if you are not using it, as then in case you want to tax it in the future, you don't need to pay arrears, but there is no law forcing such declaration and therefore there's nothing illegal in not declaring the car off the road if its left unused and untaxed.

In this case they obviously were driving it hence getting caught while out driving.

James Bond Junior

bmwguy wrote: »

I don't normally admit this but I sold a car to my dog at my parents address last October then bought it back to clear 3 months arrears when I wasn't driving it but never declared off the road. It was about 305 euro I think.

None of my family would put their name to this. My mother was flipping when she found out she thought the guards would be knocking down the door in a dawn raid. But nothing ever happened. I just did it for the laugh. I could have put any name down at that address.
What are they going to do? Arrest the dog?

It did raise questions when I sold it in March because i told the buyer I had it 3 years which was technically true but log book said different. He just laughed.

I've sold my car to myself in my Irish name and address and then back to myself again in English again and haven't heard a thing. Couldn't be bothered anymore and just pay it when it's due.

Blut2

James Bond Junior wrote: »

I've sold my car to myself in my Irish name and address and then back to myself again in English again and haven't heard a thing. Couldn't be bothered anymore and just pay it when it's due.

Thats hilarious. I'm surprised it went through, but then I wonder if there are any rules preventing you re-selling a car to yourself... probably not.

Homer

Surely the insurance history would prove that it was only one brother that was ever insured to drive the car, hence, what they were doing was fraud? Its a pain in the ass but so is insurance, NCT, etc but we all have to pay it. Surprised the amount of people that seem to think its ok to evade because "its too expensive" and "anyway its cheaper to get caught and pay the fine"

Atlantic Dawn

There's no proof at all in the case that the car was used other than at the time it was caught so the only liability would have been from when it last changed owners. Having the car insured on your driveway and having a job is no proof you were using the car on the public road. The Garda should either have presented additional ANPR or Toll data to support the allegation that the car had been driven at times where the ownership was swapped.

I suspect the car was being used and if someone could get away with it for that many years it just shows you how useless the current system is at policing it.

Cordell

CiniO wrote: »

No. The old owner is not due back tax.
There is no obligation to tax a vehicle.
If you don't tax it, it doesn't mean you automatically become due back tax.
You only become due back tax when you intend to tax vehicle which was untaxed prior to that.
On selling untaxed vehicle there is no back tax due. That's the law.

So no... Old owner is not due back tax after selling untaxed vehicle

http://www.housing.gov.ie/local-government/motor-tax/motor-tax

says that "Liability for motor tax arises when a vehicle is used in a public place/road"

And the onus is on the owner to prove/declare on his own responsibility that the vehicle is not used on a public place/road. So my understanding of this is that mototax liability never clears, but the taxman just don't pursue it.

CiniO

Cordell wrote: »

http://www.housing.gov.ie/local-government/motor-tax/motor-tax

says that "Liability for motor tax arises when a vehicle is used in a public place/road"

And the onus is on the owner to prove/declare on his own responsibility that the vehicle is not used on a public place/road. So my understanding of this is that mototax liability never clears, but the taxman just don't pursue it.

Liability for Motortax arriving when vehicle is used on public places/road is obviously true.
Law clearly states that vehicle used in public place must be taxed.

But I don't know where you got that bit that onus is on the owner to prove to anyone that vehicle wasn't used in public place in case it wasn't taxed. There isn't just anything like that.
If person was to be prosecuted for using untaxed vehicle in public place, then the prosecuting party would have to show evidence to that fact.
They can't just say that your car wasn't taxed so we want you to prove us that you didn't use it. It would be slightly mad if it was the case.

Cordell

There is no "prosecuting party", it is a tax arrears, not a criminal offence.
I'm an engineer, not a law pro, so take my 2c with a grain of salt

uck51js9zml2yt

I used to se this all the time when working in the MTO.
Glad to see that AGS are finally clamping down on it. Hopefully we'll read a lot more articles with the same theme in the near future.

The sooner they bring in continuous taxation the better. I know the government was looking at it recently.

Truckermal

Amaris Agreeable Price wrote: »

I used to se this all the time when working in the MTO.
Glad to see that AGS are finally clamping down on it. Hopefully we'll read a lot more articles with the same theme in the near future.

The sooner they bring in continuous taxation the better. I know the government was looking at it recently.

What's continuous taxation?