Belgian customs at it again

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Triumphant

I suspect this proves the point why both are dysfunctional

and corrupt

[Pilou]

Originally Posted by weavis

Note to self: wear the glasses. I thought you wrote the EU is a fart..

The vulgar language of your post sucks and makes a mockery of your moderator badge which anyway doesn't give you all the rights.

[weavis]

I find it strange that a country with only 40 miles of coastline would start a campaign against British sailors and the issue of taxation.

Do they not think word will get out? 2 or 3 hefty fines AND NO sailor who knows will visit Belgium.

I like Belgium. I dont like this action. It will cost them in the long run, if it continues..

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by weavis

I find it strange that a country with only 40 miles of coastline would start a campaign against British sailors and the issue of taxation.



Do they not think word will get out? 2 or 3 hefty fines AND NO sailor who knows will visit Belgium.



I like Belgium. I dont like this action. It will cost them in the long run, if it continues..

It's actually like this. With the abolition of internal borders customs doesn't have much to do anymore. All the custom checkpoints at the land borders are gone.
In Belgium when you work for the state you cannot be fired, so something needed to be done to keep these people occupied. So they got the mission to combat excise fraud, specifically diesel excise fraud. Most cars in Belgium run on diesel, and the temptation to fill up with the much cheaper red diesel is strong...
But the result is that diesel excise fraud has almost disappeared. So these people went and looked for a new mission...

Law enforcement reacting to a lack of criminals by creating some themselves... we've seen that elsewhere as well...

[Rorzech]

I can't afford chocolate at $1,000.00 / LB . No Belgian chocolate for this guy !

[weavis]

Im of the opinion that the UK can expect lots of retaliatory actions from various EU countries for daring to let the team down. The EU lost a LOT of money from the proposed exit, and a lot of credibility.

If we could go back to the single concept of unity and move away from total centralised control, then the EU will be what it should be and very user friendly.

It saddens me. It saddens a lot of English people too. The UK was fine with the EU until sovereign control over our own rules and protection was over ruled.

We have two hopes. Shame one of them is Bob....

[captaingregger]

Ahhh, the tax and fine game.

Kudos to you cruisers who vote with your feet, or boat as it were. I do the same. The money is immaterial to me. It's the welcoming, or lack thereof, that forces me to go elsewhere.

If a country taxes me beyond the norm for visiting, I simply never come back. There are far too many places to visit in one's lifetime.

I haven't been back to the UK (for leisure, my work pays the tax otherwise) in over a 13 yrs because of the abhorrent departure tax at LHR.

In 2015 the island of Kosrae had just one visiting cruiser due to aggressive and arrogant customs agents levying out-of-whack fees. For an island of 6,600 people that hurt their economy in a big way. By 2016 they saw the err of their ways and wiped out all fees in an attempt to get cruisers to come back.

In 2016 the state of Illinois suffered the biggest population decline out of any US State. To reduce the bleeding on state coffers they raised taxes last month by 62% (2.5% income tax increase). This has caused a real estate boom in neighboring Wisconsin never before seen in any US state, including California and New York, in terms of minute-by-minute bidding wars, as state residents vote with their feet and leave IL. Meanwhile, the legislature there passed laws to go after corporations who leave to get their money anyway. All of this is only causing more and more people to leave, which is only forcing the state to have to raise taxes even more. It's a vicious cycle brought on by inept government bureaucrats and officials.

One country tried to fine me $1,000 for not getting an "vessel entry permit" even though there was no mention of it on their website nor on noonsite. I told them I'd hire a lawyer and spend $10,000 to beat the fine. I ended up getting the governor to tell the immigration department to let it slide. As a cruiser, I didnt' bat an eye at spending money on the local economy. I spent $8,000 in their country during the two months I was there. I employed 3 full-time workers to help with boat maintenance, spent money on meals and hotel rooms and on parts from the local hardware stores. THAT is how you breath life into your economy, not taxing the visitor a ridiculous rate at the gates, thereby insuring he never comes back, or worse, spreads the word for all others to avoid the place.

I had plans to visit that country again in 2016 and '17 but the experience of entry and exit left a sour taste in my mouth. I'd rather spend my hard earned dollars elsewhere. Even if the local population were nice people, which they really were, their government was very unwelcoming.

I'm not saying we shouldn't pay our fair share along the way, but when a country holds you hostage to fines and fees that far exceed any norm, well, an economic boycott if often the only choice.

[Tomahawk]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

It's actually like this. With the abolition of internal borders customs doesn't have much to do anymore. All the custom checkpoints at the land borders are gone.
In Belgium when you work for the state you cannot be fired, so something needed to be done to keep these people occupied. So they got the mission to combat excise fraud, specifically diesel excise fraud. Most cars in Belgium run on diesel, and the temptation to fill up with the much cheaper red diesel is strong...
But the result is that diesel excise fraud has almost disappeared. So these people went and looked for a new mission...

Law enforcement reacting to a lack of criminals by creating some themselves... we've seen that elsewhere as well...

Interesting comment, but it is clearly not the case. The customs could enforce the VAT on the principle of requiring proof of payment of VAT and examining fuel tanks and receipts to ensure vat has been paid. The French and Dutch do that. Instead they are simply saying red fuel... issue fine. They are reported bording boats carrying a credit card reader in anticipation of issuing a fine.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by captaingregger

. . . I haven't been back to the UK (for leisure, my work pays the tax otherwise) in over a 13 yrs because of the abhorrent departure tax at LHR.
. . .

???

On your own airplane?

Is LHR the only airport in the UK?

If you're talking about flying commercial, then I don't really understand this. I fly in and out of LHR often several times a month, and ticket prices (including departure taxes) are not out of line with the rest of Europe. LHR has been massively upgraded in the last few years and is now a really nice airport, very convenient to central London and also to the Solent.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Tomahawk

. . . .They are reported bording boats carrying a credit card reader in anticipation of issuing a fine.

Barstewards.

Are they boarding boats on innocent passage through Belgian waters? Or just in their ports?

Important question for me because I will be passing through the North Sea back to the UK next month, and one route takes me through Belgian waters.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Tomahawk

Interesting comment, but it is clearly not the case. The customs could enforce the VAT on the principle of requiring proof of payment of VAT and examining fuel tanks and receipts to ensure vat has been paid. The French and Dutch do that. Instead they are simply saying red fuel... issue fine. They are reported bording boats carrying a credit card reader in anticipation of issuing a fine.

Invoices are not considered sufficient proof that you paid vat on the fuel that is actually in the tank. Hence the dye. I remember from the time they were cracking down on diesel cars that they would not just take samples from your fuel tank, but check the fuel filter as well. If even a small trace of the dye was found they would look at how much kms you had on the car and estimate total lifetime fuel consumption so far, and charge you for excises on the lot.

The law is the law. That other countries aren't enforcing the law doesn't have standing. What Brits actually should do is claim the fine back from their government.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Invoices are not considered sufficient proof that you paid vat on the fuel that is actually in the tank. Hence the dye. I remember from the time they were cracking down on diesel cars that they would not just take samples from your fuel tank, but check the fuel filter as well. If even a small trace of the dye was found they would look at how much kms you had on the car and estimate total lifetime fuel consumption so far, and charge you for excises on the lot.

The law is the law. That other countries aren't enforcing the law doesn't have standing. What Brits actually should do is claim the fine back from their government.

I have stayed out of this thread as it far far away from my everyday life.

But...

Surely you yourself don't believe what you have posted.

AFAIK, in every civilised country, written, dated invoices and more importantly, receipts are legal proof of a transaction. The receipt would surely state the taxed amount. To not accept such paperwork as proof of tax paid would suggest fraud had occurred, if so, the onus of proof of fraud would lie with prosecution, not the defendant. The date of the receipt would give a good idea if the fuel currently in the vehicle had been taxed or not.

Is it illegal to put red fuel into your car in your private garage and then empty it out again before driving on a public road???

[Sailmonkey]

Originally Posted by Pilou

The vulgar language of your post sucks and makes a mockery of your moderator badge which anyway doesn't give you all the rights.

Fart is vulgar?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Wotname

. . . AFAIK, in every civilised country, written, dated invoices and more importantly, receipts are legal proof of a transaction. The receipt would surely state the taxed amount. To not accept such paperwork as proof of tax paid would suggest fraud had occurred, if so, the onus of proof of fraud would lie with prosecution, not the defendant. The date of the receipt would give a good idea if the fuel currently in the vehicle had been taxed or not.. . .

Correct, and that is why the Belgians are not fining for unpaid taxes. They are fining just for traces of red fuel, which is illegal per se -- that is, irrespective of whether taxes have been paid or not, under Belgian law.

It's a rather gross violation of comity -- and important principle in maritime setting where ships go from state to state and where it would be difficult to comply with different local regulations in every state. But comity is not obligatory.

The UK could retaliate by refusing to grant comity to Belgian vessels.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Correct, and that is why the Belgians are not fining for unpaid taxes. They are fining just for traces of red fuel, which is illegal per se -- that is, irrespective of whether taxes have been paid or not, under Belgian law.

It's a rather gross violation of comity -- and important principle in maritime setting where ships go from state to state and where it would be difficult to comply with different local regulations in every state. But comity is not obligatory.

The UK could retaliate by refusing to grant comity to Belgian vessels.

Much as I agree with your thoughts .... How many UK vessels land in Belgium in a year ? what is the economic impact ? Maybe boaters are just not a big enough group for either UK or Belgium to give a damn.

Plus ... their chocolate stinks. It could not compare to pre-EC Cadbury's before they had to change the formula to meet the EC definition of chocolate.