VRT Megathread - ALL VRT DISCUSSION IN HERE - Read First Post

ryanstewart

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry but if you'll care to read back this thread you will see me argue vehemently against VRT for a number of reasons. But this what you've just wrote here is the greatest load of nonsense I've read on this thread. The scrappage scheme is NOT a 'waiver of VRT' - it conditionally applies to older car to get them off the road. Its also not the only factor in the rebound of car sales. Your statements on tax take appear to be completely contradictory.

If you are going to make arguments like this you are going to be doing your cause more harm than good.

I'm well aware of this, and despite the fact that an older car is being scrapped, it still is a waiver of up to €1500 on VRT, which is why the forecast is so low from the dept of finance this year. SIMI agree that the scrappage scheme has been the single biggest contributing factor to the increase in car sales. If you question the tax take forecast, to date this year the total take for VAT and VRT combined from the motor industry is approx 420 million, therefore VRT is approx €250 million - on course for the lower figures estimated earlier this year by the government. These are the figures provided by the dept of finance - I'm not making this up!

The reason I'm putting this forward is that there are so many people who believe that much more is taken in VRT than actually is, and there will be a major shortfall in revenue receipts if it goes - it's simply not the case! The proposal we have put forward will be fairer to motorists, and actually increase the revenue currently taken, benefitting the industry and the exchequer.

-Chris-

jock101 wrote: »

lol, this hole is a total joke! Dont you know that by now, Paddy!:rolleyes:

Jock101, please either post constructively or don't bother. This is an absolutely pointless post.

opinion guy

-Chris- wrote: »

Jock101, please either post constructively or don't bother. This is an absolutely pointless post.

It was also a racist post. I think this guy was banned before for this on another forum

-Chris-

opinion guy wrote: »

It was also a racist post. I think this guy was banned before for this on another forum

I'm aware of his ban history (currently Politics), and separately I don't judge the post as racist. I'm happy with just issuing a warning on-thread, thanks.

K-9

ryanstewart wrote: »

I'm well aware of this, and despite the fact that an older car is being scrapped, it still is a waiver of up to €1500 on VRT, which is why the forecast is so low from the dept of finance this year. SIMI agree that the scrappage scheme has been the single biggest contributing factor to the increase in car sales. If you question the tax take forecast, to date this year the total take for VAT and VRT combined from the motor industry is approx 420 million, therefore VRT is approx €250 million - on course for the lower figures estimated earlier this year by the government. These are the figures provided by the dept of finance - I'm not making this up!

The reason I'm putting this forward is that there are so many people who believe that much more is taken in VRT than actually is, and there will be a major shortfall in revenue receipts if it goes - it's simply not the case! The proposal we have put forward will be fairer to motorists, and actually increase the revenue currently taken, benefitting the industry and the exchequer.

There is a difference between knocking €1,500 of it and scrapping it completely. One is a short term boost and they hope the increased sales will offset the reduced revenue per sale. Scrapping it completely means zero receipts and hoping the increased sales result in massive increases in car sales, thus hugely increased VAT receipts.

Taking your €250 Million figure. Not well up on VRT figures but on a €20,000 Net Car, say VRT of about 20%, €4,000 and VAT of about €5,000.

Scrap the VRT, VAT would be €4,200. So they lose about €4,800 per car or over half. So, sales would need to at least double to make it up. Whether that level of sales is sustainable, I don't know. I'm sure they've crunched the numbers on this, at a rather more detailed level than me!

ryanstewart

K-9 wrote: »

There is a difference between knocking €1,500 of it and scrapping it completely. One is a short term boost and they hope the increased sales will offset the reduced revenue per sale. Scrapping it completely means zero receipts and hoping the increased sales result in massive increases in car sales, thus hugely increased VAT receipts.

Taking your €250 Million figure. Not well up on VRT figures but on a €20,000 Net Car, say VRT of about 20%, €4,000 and VAT of about €5,000.

Scrap the VRT, VAT would be €4,200. So they lose about €4,800 per car or over half. So, sales would need to at least double to make it up. Whether that level of sales is sustainable, I don't know. I'm sure they've crunched the numbers on this, at a rather more detailed level than me!

Thanks K9, but there are alternative ways to replace this lost revenue, while still being fairer to drivers - they have been posted earlier on here, and can be viewed on the website - www.abolishvrt.org - they have been widely looked at by a number of politicians at many levels, and they merit further investigation - it's the governments job to look into things like this, but so far all they have offered is a ridiculous figure of 25-30 cent a litre on fuel to replace VRT - commission for taxation has rubbished their figures already. They have shown a serious lack of thought on this. Our figures are extremely conservative too - no sense in putting people off with wild estimations. General theory is that it will bring in approx €550-€600 million a year in revenue.

-Chris-

I wish you'd rename the campaign and your website to replaceVRT.org. I'd hate for people to think you were getting rid of a tax when all you're doing is moving it from one pocket to the other.

-Chris-

Oh, and by the way, this link doesn't work on your website:
http://www.abolishvrt.org/support.html

cabrwab

ryanstewart wrote: »

This is a huge misunderstanding - everyone who has purchased a new car in the republic of Ireland has also paid VRT - it's not just to do with imports although you can still save a bit by importing - just not as much as it used to be as irish dealers have really reigned in their pricing.

Thanks ryan,

I do know this is the general misconception, but this all really kicked off after some poor woman was crying on UTV because her lexus jeep was being impounded.

I know if i want to buy a new car VRT is applied, pushing up irish prices, this is the reason alot of UK people used come to ireland to buy there new cars, because before tax our cars where cheaper.

I know you can get great bargains across the water

But i do not believe that most people for a second are on about abolishing vrt on new cars, they want to get the bargains across the water, and then act surprised when they get hit with VRT, car impounded.

Fairplay for the website and best of luck with it.

But with the price of petrol/diesel where it is, do i want to pay MORE tax on an already Heavily taxed fuel to run my little 1.4, i do f*ck.
Not when i've already paid VRT on said 1.4.
So ill be paying it again?

Why should i pay for somebody else to get there new luxobarge, new or imported.

Eric Cartman

I dont mind VRT......aslong as its the 50 euro kind.......

keithclancy

From: signpost_service@ec.europa.eu
to me

68091: Dear Sir/Madam,

I currently working in Germany and I am living in the Netherlands

I am soon moving to Eindhoven and will be on a German Contract, my employer has a car leasing scheme whereby employees can lease a car through the company and use it for commuting to and from work.

Unfortunately I have come across a problem whereby I would have to pay BPM tax if i do this. This leaves me severely disadvantaged as:

A. I am Taxed the same as other German Residents but yet have to pay an Extra Tax because I choose to live in the Netherlands, even though I have no Income in the Netherlands.

B. I will have to pay Tax on a vehicle which I do not own.

I have contacted the Belastingdienst in the Netherlands and they have advised that I would have to pay the BPM Tax in any situation whereby I have the car in the country for more than two weeks.

I would like to know my rights as an EU Citizen on this matter as I does not seem fair to penalise someone that lives just over the border and commutes in a vehicle supplied by their employer.

Thank you for your help on this matter.

Regards,



Reply
Dear,
We would like to inform you that taxation is one of the policy areas that is not regulated by the EU. There is little Community legislation, or harmonisation of national fiscal provisions, applied by the Member States in the area of passenger car taxation. Please follow the link for more information:
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs...r/index_en.htm
So there does not seem to be an EU crossborder solution to solve your problem.
Maybe it would be an idea to inform your employer about this taxation problem. Maybe he could somehow refund the paid BPM taxes or he can pay them directly.

Kind regards
CSS

Just thought i'd clear that up

Satanta

THE end of VRT as we know it is in sight after a landmark ruling by Europe, it has just emerged.

Sinn Féin MEP, Bairbre de Brún has welcomed the EU challenge to the Irish government on its handling of the Vehicle Registration Tax (VRT) issue.

Speaking as the issue was debated in the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament Ms de Brún told donegaldaily: ”I welcome the fact that the European Parliament has the opportunity to debate the important issue of VRT.

“People at home have been badly affected by the way this issue has been handled and are keen to present first hand information to the EU about this.

“While all states have the right to their own taxation system, the State should not be able to seize goods worth more than the sum which is owed.

“VRT has been imposed at an unbelievable rate of 36% , and overzealous pursuit saw the seizure of cars at the roadside followed now by disproportionate legal proceedings against some of those who had bought cars across the border.”

The petition from Donegal man John E Doherty of the Irish Driver’s Association calls in to question the legality under EU law of the 36% Vehicle registration Tax (VRT) in Ireland.

The Irish Government continues to impose Vehicle Registration Tax on new and second-hand vehicles ‘imported’ into the State from the North of Ireland.

The European Commission is investigating the way the Irish authorities are applying Vehicle Registration Tax and in particular the way in which the value of second-hand vehicles is established.

Under the Finance Bill, Gardai are given the power to seize cars at the roadside for non-payment of VRT. This is even if they are properly registered in, for example, the North, and fully insured etc to be driven in the South.

Gardai and customs officers are ‘knowingly breaking the law’ every time they seize a vehicle in connection with VRT charges, to Mr Doherty.

The Association has said that car seizures and VRT blitz by Customs and Excise stands in contradiction of both Irish and European Union legislation, a ruling they claim has already been upheld at Letterkenny Court.

John Doherty insists: “The Gardai and Customs are both fully aware that they are breaking European law and breaching peoples rights with these seizure.”

He claims precedent set last January has already been established in the case of his son when three charges against him were struck out by Judge Kevin Kilraine.

He ruled that the seizure breached Article 25 of the Treaty of Rome Act (free movement of products within the Union). When the car was taken, they also denied him the right of due process, as he was not convicted of any crime yet his car was taken from him.

http://www.donegaldaily.com/2011/06/14/breaking-news-europe-union-to-challenge-government-on-vrt/

L1011

Why does an MEP from a different country care?


Denmark, the Netherlands and a number of other countries have VRT-like taxes at even higher rates. Even if they find we need to change the rules somewhat, its here to stay.

The vehicle seizures are not due to the sum owed, they're due to the illegality of the vehicle, just as they can seize vehicles which are illegal for other reasons. This appears to be the ONLY thing they're investigating at that.

Max Power1

/gets popcorn


(OT - glad to see it might finally bring an end to this illegal tax)

L1011

Max Power1 wrote: »

(OT - glad to see it might finally bring an end to this illegal tax)

Its ALREADY been proven not to be illegal.

Max Power1

MYOB wrote: »

Its ALREADY been proven not to be illegal.

Restriction of pan-eu trade is illegal.

Gophur

The article clearly states the problem is with how the OMSP/VRT is calculated.


Any VRT should be based on something other than the made-up number that is OMSP.

Owen

First of all, it's not illegal.

Secondly, the article seems to concern itself with how the Gardaí and Customs conduct themselves with the impounding of vehicles which haven't been reregistered down south, and with how the values of VRT are calculated - not with the VRT itself.

Thread title fail?

Satanta

Personally I welcome a challenge to the system for calculating the amount of VRT due on a vehicle. I recently paid E3200 on a car that is worth 6000 at best. Valued at over E11000 by the revenue.

Cuddlesworth

Satanta wrote: »

Personally I welcome a challenge to the system for calculating the amount of VRT due on a vehicle. I recently paid E3200 on a car that is worth 6000 at best. Valued at over E11000 by the revenue.

You can contest it and get money back. Plenty of people here have. Just build a good case with plenty of evidence that their pricing was unjustified.

R.O.R

Satanta wrote: »

Personally I welcome a challenge to the system for calculating the amount of VRT due on a vehicle. I recently paid E3200 on a car that is worth 6000 at best. Valued at over E11000 by the revenue.

Hope you appealed the decision then.

Also - where did you get the value of €6,000?

Robbo

I note in the article one of the classic tropes of the Donegal VRT Vigilante Force, they keep referring to the Treaty of Rome, despite it having been repealed and bundled into TFEU.

I bet Mr Doherty thinks that this Coal and Steel Community has gone too far...

Satanta

Robbo wrote: »

Donegal VRT Vigilante Force

Is that a real thing

Guy:Incognito

Satanta wrote: »

Is that a real thing

Probably as real as VRT beign illegal.

-Chris-

THE end of VRT as we know it is in sight after a landmark ruling by Europe, it has just emerged.

Not the end of VRT, but the end of VRT AS WE KNOW IT. Big difference.

Sinn Féin MEP, Bairbre de Brún has welcomed the EU challenge to the Irish government on its handling of the Vehicle Registration Tax (VRT) issue.

Speaking as the issue was debated in the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament Ms de Brún told donegaldaily: ”I welcome the fact that the European Parliament has the opportunity to debate the important issue of VRT.

“People at home have been badly affected by the way this issue has been handled and are keen to present first hand information to the EU about this.

It's important for Politicians to keep themselves in the public eye. Well done for her, welcoming the opportunity to debate this issue.

“While all states have the right to their own taxation system, the State should not be able to seize goods worth more than the sum which is owed.

So, is this the issue that's being requested to be changed - you can't seize the car anymore?

“VRT has been imposed at an unbelievable rate of 36% , and overzealous pursuit saw the seizure of cars at the roadside followed now by disproportionate legal proceedings against some of those who had bought cars across the border.”

The petition from Donegal man John E Doherty of the Irish Driver’s Association calls in to question the legality under EU law of the 36% Vehicle registration Tax (VRT) in Ireland.

Is it just the 36% rate that's illegal, or is it all the rates?
If the 36% rate was reduced to 30%, would it suddenly become legal?

The Irish Government continues to impose Vehicle Registration Tax on new and second-hand vehicles ‘imported’ into the State from the North of Ireland.

Why is the word imported in quotation marks?

The European Commission is investigating the way the Irish authorities are applying Vehicle Registration Tax and in particular the way in which the value of second-hand vehicles is established.

This is definitely welcome, but the fact of the matter is that a large proportion of the VRT appeals are successful, so it's just a change to procedure rather than a changing of the legal standing?

Under the Finance Bill, Gardai are given the power to seize cars at the roadside for non-payment of VRT. This is even if they are properly registered in, for example, the North, and fully insured etc to be driven in the South.

So they have the powers under the Finance Bill

Gardai and customs officers are ‘knowingly breaking the law’ every time they seize a vehicle in connection with VRT charges, to Mr Doherty.

Or does the Finance Bill not have the ability to grant these powers?

The Association has said that car seizures and VRT blitz by Customs and Excise stands in contradiction of both Irish and European Union legislation, a ruling they claim has already been upheld at Letterkenny Court.

OK, so a court has ruled...

John Doherty insists: “The Gardai and Customs are both fully aware that they are breaking European law and breaching peoples rights with these seizure.”

He claims precedent set last January has already been established in the case of his son when three charges against him were struck out by Judge Kevin Kilraine.

He ruled that the seizure breached Article 25 of the Treaty of Rome Act (free movement of products within the Union). When the car was taken, they also denied him the right of due process, as he was not convicted of any crime yet his car was taken from him.

...that the car shouldn't have been taken. Nothing to do with VRT at all, only to do with the Gardai's powers of seizure.


Honestly, this is another storm in a teacup article by a Donegal media outlet, playing to the crowd.
Is VRT illegal? Not according to this article
Will VRT be overturned? Not according to this article
Will VRT be slightly amended with regard to the 36% rate, and the powers of seizure be clarified? Only if everything goes exactly to plan

Misleading headline for a sensationalist article.

Robbo

Satanta wrote: »

Is that a real thing

Sadly no, although I'd imagine their equivalent of a Batmobile would be a Toyota Twincam or Audi RS4 TDI with yellow Donegal plates on the back.

Satanta

Robbo wrote: »

Sadly no, although I'd imagine their equivalent of a Batmobile would be a Toyota Twincam or Audi RS4 TDI with yellow Donegal plates on the back.

What makes you imagine that?

Gophur

Why do so many get hung up on the figure of 36%, when all that matters is the amount of € you end up handing over.

100% of a reasonable figure would be OK, the problem is the OMSP and where the VRO generate such a number.

CiniO

Gophur wrote: »

Why do so many get hung up on the figure of 36%, when all that matters is the amount of € you end up handing over.

100% of a reasonable figure would be OK, the problem is the OMSP and where the VRO generate such a number.

The most radicalous thing here, is that OMSP in Ireland includes VRT.

In example: Assume the car in some EU country is worth 10k, OSMP in Ireland is 13.5k (because of VRT).

Now when importing such car, VRT has to be paid on OSMP (which includes VRT) so in short words VRT is paid on price already containing VRT.

That makes effective VRT rates higher then they are shown.

Banks were forced by the state to show all APR rates not to mislead their customers about the real cost of mortgages, while the government is doing the same trick with VRT as banks used to do with repayment rates.

A think is should be simple - you buy a car abroad for 10k. VRT is f.e. 26% so you pay 2600 euros tax.

In real world, you buy car for 10k abroad, bring it to Ireland. Revenue says OMSP is 13500 so you pay 26% on 13500 which is about 3500.
So the effective VRT rate instead of 26% is 35%.

-Chris-

But the current way of doing it is the fairest.

Two identical cars, one in the UK, one in Ireland.
The one in Ireland has €5,000 of VRT in its price.
If you import the one from the UK, you should pay the same VRT as the one in Ireland.

This system caters for that.


The only issue with this situation is that the OMSPs are by-and-large overinflated, but the evidence is that the majority of VRT appeals are successful.

L1011

Max Power1 wrote: »

Restriction of pan-eu trade is illegal.

And its already been ruled not to be a restriction...

Face it - VRT isn't illegal. If it was, the EU would have stopped it a *very long time ago*, e.g. days after we introduced it due to removing the actually illegal vehicle excise.

CiniO

MYOB wrote: »

And its already been ruled not to be a restriction...

Face it - VRT isn't illegal. If it was, the EU would have stopped it a *very long time ago*, e.g. days after we introduced it due to removing the actually illegal vehicle excise.

EU doesn't work that quick.
Perfect example is Irish NCT system, where secondhand vehicles imported into Ireland, have to go through NCT straight away after being registered in Ireland, even they have a valid test certificate from country of origin.

That practices were common among many EU countries, but were already stopped by the orders of European Court of Justice after case was brought by EU commission.
Sadly EU commission didn't bring the Irish case yet.

MYOB

MYOB wrote: »

Face it - VRT isn't illegal. If it was, the EU would have stopped it a *very long time ago*, e.g. days after we introduced it due to removing the actually illegal vehicle excise.

It may not be classed as illegal but aspects of the VRT system here were deemed unfair a good few years back by the EU. Ireland had a chance back then to change it but they did not and because of that the EU have been imposing a annual set fine each year that Revenue are more than happy to pay as the fine is a tiny fraction of the yearly revenue generated from VRT fees.

R.O.R

hellboy99 wrote: »

It may not be classed as illegal but aspects of the VRT system here were deemed unfair a good few years back by the EU. Ireland had a chance back then to change it but they did not and because of that the EU have been imposing a annual set fine each year that Revenue are more than happy to pay as the fine is a tiny fraction of the yearly revenue generated from VRT fees.

Can you post any proof of these mythical annual fines that are imposed on Ireland every year for VRT? I'm still waiting on someone else to post them, but you seem to have your finger on the button so I'd expect them at some point later today.


Or is it all just Urban Legend?

Padraig Mor

R.O.R wrote: »

Can you post any proof of these mythical annual fines that are imposed on Ireland every year for VRT? I'm still waiting on someone else to post them, but you seem to have your finger on the button so I'd expect them at some point later today.


Or is it all just Urban Legend?

Urban legend. VRT violates the spirit, but not the letter, of EU law.

-Chris-

That's the crux of it - so many people seem to be confusing illegal with unfair.

R.O.R

R.O.R wrote: »

Can you post any proof of these mythical annual fines that are imposed on Ireland every year for VRT? I'm still waiting on someone else to post them, but you seem to have your finger on the button so I'd expect them at some point later today.

Someone else posted this a while back in relation to a VRT issue my brother is having:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72198660&postcount=24

jmc19 wrote: »

When the European Commission begun proceedings on the VRT system here in 1998/1999, I believe it was either in 2001 or 2002 (not sure as I can't find the stuff I'm looking for now but will later), aspects of the VRT system here were ruled to be illegal and unfair.
Now our government at the time would not abolish VRT, so instead the EU imposed a set annual fine on Ireland for charging VRT as long as they continued to do so. Now Cossie is correct in saying that the reason why our government are quite happy to continue paying this "set fine" is due to the fact that the amount of the fine is so small compared to that of the revenue generated by VRT.

From what I have been told (I can't name the source) and it tallies up with the quote above, the reason why the fine came about was due to a complaint registered with the EU Commission back in 1999 by Niall O’Dowling of Used Car Importers of Ireland (UCII). The EU Commission at the time said the VRT system in place was infringing EU law by charging VRT on vehicles imported from other EU member states.

In 2009 the European Commission then begun proceedings against Ireland for infringing EU law in relation to VRT and that brings us up to date with current EC proceedings.

I'm currently still trying to get something in writing about this annual fine as has the poster of the quote above. So far I'm not having much luck and I can see why that is the case as it would create a lot of problems, and I'm not having much luck either with the European Commission in relation to my brothers case:

Guy:Incognito

hellboy99 wrote: »

I'm currently still trying to get something in writing about this annual fine as has the poster of the quote above.

And as have many people before, but funnily enough, not one person has ever managed to prove that fines are being paid. Apparently millions of euro is funnelling from Ireland to EU coffers every year with no paper trail. I can only assume one of the ministers goes over with a suitcase of cash in person each year and its ditributed in cash without ever seeing a bank account.

R.O.R

hellboy99 wrote: »

From what I have been told (I can't name the source) and it tallies up with the quote above, the reason why the fine came about was due to a complaint registered with the EU Commission back in 1999 by Niall O’Dowling of Used Car Importers of Ireland (UCII). The EU Commission at the time said the VRT system in place was infringing EU law by charging VRT on vehicles imported from other EU member states.

In 2009 the European Commission then begun proceedings against Ireland for infringing EU law in relation to VRT and that brings us up to date with current EC proceedings.

I'm currently still trying to get something in writing about this annual fine as has the poster of the quote above. So far I'm not having much luck and I can see why that is the case as it would create a lot of problems, and I'm not having much luck either with the European Commission in relation to my brothers case:

Fair play for coming back.

I do suspect that you'll be searching in vain to come up with proof of the fines Ireland are paying for having VRT.

L1011

R.O.R wrote: »

I do suspect that you'll be searching in vain to come up with proof of the fines Ireland are paying for having VRT.

Most likely because they don't actually exist.

IF the state was being fined, one of the SF TDs would have found the figures by now.

The money also has to come from somewhere, which would be in publicly accessible documents too, so one of the anti-campaigners in Donegal would have found them by now.

This is going back to September of 2002:

The European Court of Justice has ruled that aspects of vehicle registration tax constitute a form of double taxation and are therefore illegal under the EU treaty.
The ruling came after a Finnish citizen took a case against his own government.
He claimed that by levying vehicle registration tax on a used car he had imported into Finland, the government was taxing the same product twice, because the tax ignored the value of the tax already paid on the car in another member state.
The court ruled that the VRT law in Finland conflicts with the EU treaty, and is illegal. The ruling may affect the operation of VRT in Ireland, which also charges high rates of VRT.
The European Commission two weeks ago called for the abolition of vehicle registration tax.
The Commission said in the interim, states should ensure that their VRT systems did not discriminate by imposing a double taxation burden on motorists importing second hand cars from other member states.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0919/vrt.html

Michael Ring, Fine Gael TD for Mayo made the following statement in a Dáil debate back in 2004:

http://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2004-02-17.338.0&s=vrt#g362.0

Drivers in this country must be the softest people in the world to put up with the taxation and abuse we get from the Government. When one purchases a car one must pay VRT. We were told that on joining the European Union we would be able to import cars from elsewhere in Europe without paying VRT. The Government quickly got a derogation from this when it found it was losing tax revenue. This was wrong.

Quite some time back on the Green Party’s website, under its policy on the economy section it had a statement on VRT to the effect that the Green Party would abolish motor tax or VRT on a phased basis. The Commission on Taxation report, commissioned by the Government in 2009 recommended its abolition over a phased period of ten years.

Esel

hellboy99 wrote: »

Quite some time back on the Green Party’s website, under its policy on the economy section it had a statement on VRT to the effect that the Green Party would abolish motor tax or VRT on a phased basis.

Maybe the CO2 rating system was their Phase 1 then? We should have voted them back in! :eek:

hellboy99 wrote: »

The Commission on Taxation report, commissioned by the Government in 2009 recommended its abolition over a phased period of ten years.

There are a stack of different Commission Reports sitting on shelves gathering dust. Don't hold your breath on that count.

sollar

Looks like the government may have to face the EU courts over the issue of VRT.


http://www.donegaldaily.com/2011/06/30/major-victory-for-anti-vrt-campaigners-in-donegal/

sollar

OSI wrote: »

This can't be a good thing, the government will only look to other areas to make up the shortfall in VRT if this happens. And by other areas, read Motor Tax.

If they try to claw it all back on that people wil be paying about a grand per car in motor tax.

Robbo

Ah good old Ryan Stewart and his Ladybird book on European Law.

I see he reckons it's quite rare that the Commission initiates proceedings against a Member State. I suggest he picks up a copy of Craig & de Burca's book on European Law, opens the case index and notes how many of them begin with Commission -v- France, Italy etc.

challengemaster

sollar wrote: »

If they try to claw it all back on that people wil be paying about a grand per car in motor tax.

Anyone with any sort of "high litre" car is already paying that much...

robtri

challengemaster wrote: »

Anyone with any sort of "high litre" car is already paying that much...

so just imagine how they will be paying if VRt was abolished...



Also to note ... if you think the car industry was badly hit witht eh recession..this would devastate it..

Matt Simis

robtri wrote: »

Also to note ... if you think the car industry was badly hit witht eh recession..this would devastate it..

Only the used car sales portion and only temporally. VRT is a band aid thats got to be pulled off, better do it now than when we are in a boom and VRT is worth a lot more.

I was in the VRT office twice before they closed down and moved to NCTS. Grand total of 3 people there; a doorman, a staffer and me. Empty seats = 50. VRT has already died in monetary terms.


There is also the long standing counterpoint that no VRT = more car sales as cars get cheaper. More sales, more tax (VAT, fuel, aftersales service etc). While its not a sure bet, it is a definite possible outcome.

sollar

Its an unfair tax and the country will just have to adjust if its abolished.

We're not flavour of the month with the EU re taxes these days anyway!!

-Chris-

sollar wrote: »

Looks like the government may have to face the EU courts over the issue of VRT.


http://www.donegaldaily.com/2011/06/30/major-victory-for-anti-vrt-campaigners-in-donegal/

Over what issue? This'll only affect a very small number of drivers.

More of Ryan/Donegal's self-interested VRT whinging.