Illegal Government Law!

MR BIG · 11-01-2007 1:39am #1

I would like to hear from anyone that has any experience of breaking the illegal government vrt law for a short or extended period of time and if you were stopped by customs officers and what were there attitudes.

I have heard from a friend that didn't clear his northern reg car for an extended period of months that was stopped by the customs and told to clear the car immediately or it would be impounded.

But my stubborn friends refused to do this and told the customs officer that the vrt law in this country was an illegal tax on the people. (Which the European union has deemed it to be, and continues to heavily fine the Irish government) and that he would be talking a case against the state, only to be informed that this was a very good idea by the sympathetic customs officer as "All cases that has been brought against the Irish government in court relating to this government vrt tax were won by these people and dismissed.

Sangre · 11-01-2007 1:44am

If such cases do exist then he is right to not pay. EU have direct effect and can be invoked and relied on by any EU citizen. However if VRT is illegal because of a Directive this is a different matter as it only has horizontal effect (with some exceptions) and can't be invoked in the ECJ by a private person.

I would read up on this but tax (and EU) law = snoooze.

I find the notion that these cases exist as not likely though considering the very high press publicity they'd receive.

Off the top of my head I can't see what it would be against the EU. It doesn't discriminate against any country and is not a trade restriction in the legal sense.

astraboy · 11-01-2007 4:51am

Sangre wrote:

If such cases do exist then he is right to not pay. EU have direct effect and can be invoked and relied on by any EU citizen. However if VRT is illegal because of a Directive this is a different matter as it only has horizontal effect (with some exceptions) and can't be invoked in the ECJ by a private person.

I would read up on this but tax (and EU) law = snoooze.

I find the notion that these cases exist as not likely though considering the very high press publicity they'd receive.

Off the top of my head I can't see what it would be against the EU. It doesn't discriminate against any country and is not a trade restriction in the legal sense.

It is against the free movement of goods and services that the EU was founded on. Basically it means I can bring a good from england say, and not have to pay excessive taxes to bring it to Ireland. Take a powerboat. I buy this in England, pay Vat there and bring it home for my own use no problem. A car however, will need to be registered. By forcing people to pay VRT when they register a vehicle it violates that principle. It discourages people going to other EU countries to source their cars at a cheaper price.

The cost of registration should be the cost of administraion of registering your vehicle, nothing more. Its less then 50 pounds in Britian.

Our man in Havana · 11-01-2007 5:24am

If it is that simple why has no one brought a case yet?

Gatster · 11-01-2007 8:04am

A guy did it in Sweden or one of the other EU countries that have a similar system, and it was indeed referred to the European court. Highly publicised in the country but I've not heard of this happening here.

maidhc · 11-01-2007 8:25am

astraboy wrote:

It discourages people going to other EU countries to source their cars at a cheaper price.

It doesn't. The fact all other countries drive at the other side of the road does!

VRT is an equal burden tax, and does not discriminate: every car owner must pay it, irrespecive of where the car comes from.

I don't agree with VRT, but saying it is the cause of all ills and completely illegal is wrong.

Tanabe · 11-01-2007 8:41am

Bond-007 wrote:

If it is that simple why has no one brought a case yet?

Either A) Everybody justs accepts this tax as it is the 'norm'
or

Even if they did it's being kept hush hush or else we'd all be at it?

maidhc wrote:

It doesn't. The fact all other countries drive at the other side of the road does!

What about Britain?

maidhc wrote:

VRT is an equal burden tax, and does not discriminate: every car owner must pay it, irrespecive of where the car comes from.

Afraid I would not agree with you here. As was said earlier, it goes against the whole principle of free trade within the EU. But fair play to you if you don't feel discriminated against when you pay thousands of euro for nothing every time you buy a car:eek:

Captain Trips · 11-01-2007 8:53am

If it was indiscriminate and didn't matter where the car came from, then there wouldn't be an extra 10% tax for cars brought in from outside the EU. So the government does recognise the difference, but chooses to levy the VRT double tax anyway.

Anyone who is happy to pay 1/3 again for a new car deserves to pay it - who the hell could think VRT tax is reasonable? Surely the government has loads more money coming in from all the other income generation schemes now after years of success.

kippy · 11-01-2007 8:55am

Personally I believe it completely goes against the "free trade" notion. However I think it is one of many things which seem to counter this notion but are still in practice in many member states. The recent case on cheap booze and cigarettes which was posted in a number of fora was lost. I wasnt too sure about the ruling details but basics of the case were somewhat similiar to the VRT issue and I believe a similiar judgement would be found. I still havent seen an references or links to documention in the various posts above to the actual judgements.
I think the EU in general do not want to harmonise tax bands or meddle in the tax affairs of member states too much. VRT is not the only "tax" we pay on goods that others don't and our tax bands are much different to others.
Kippy

Mc-BigE · 11-01-2007 9:09am

If anyone has any links to an Irish VRT case which was won then please link it to this thread. I’d love to read it.

Firstly I’m against VRT.

The government make billons every year from it.

But if it goes, what makes up the difference?

Higher income tax?

Higher Petrol prices?

Even higher Motor Tax prices?

Also, what happens if you just bought a car before the VRT is abolished?
Would there be a VRT rebate? No.

irishlordknight · 11-01-2007 9:15am

Not strictly about ccars, but the other week there was the case brought up about buying alcahol over the internet from other EU countries.

That case was thrown out by europe at the request of goverments such as the UK as they didnt want to loose there Duty from alcahol being sold in there home countrys.

So the idea of Free Trade is just a idea and in practice is only practiced when it suits goverments.

Stephen · 11-01-2007 9:18am

They had a surplus of billions last year anyway, fúck 'em.

layke · 11-01-2007 9:40am

Would like to add I was looking at importing a 95 Honda CRX fror €800. I would have no problem paying the 25% VRT on that but to my horror the Irish Gov deem the cars market value as €4,500 meaning I pay over two times the car value in tax.

Now please tell me that is not a rip off.

Biro · 11-01-2007 9:51am

maidhc wrote:

I don't agree with VRT, but saying it is the cause of all ills and completely illegal is wrong.

You are incorrect there. It is illegal in the way it is implimented. It is illegal by EU law to double tax. VRT is calculated on the price of the car PLUS VAT. (essentially paying tax on tax again)
Whether VRT should or should not exist is one debate, but the way they calculate it is another. If they wanted to keep it, it should be based on the price of the car alone, ex VAT.

Biro · 11-01-2007 9:54am

layke wrote:

Would like to add I was looking at importing a 95 Honda CRX fror €800. I would have no problem paying the 25% VRT on that but to my horror the Irish Gov deem the cars market value as €4,500 meaning I pay over two times the car value in tax.

Now please tell me that is not a rip off.

Thats another thing. They don't go by the book value of the car in all cases. They go by it's popularity. Civic VTi's were about €1500 to VRT (for average milage 99 ones) back in '05, and increased to about €2,800 in '06 cause loads of people were bringing them in from England.

Mc-BigE · 11-01-2007 9:57am

Going off topic a small bit here, but Irish Insurance companies are starting to cancel Irish driver policies after 30 days on a UK plate car, so its become harder to insure UK cars for long periods of time, which means the car has to be VRT'd

Mc-BigE · 11-01-2007 10:02am

Biro wrote:

Thats another thing. They don't go by the book value of the car in all cases. They go by it's popularity. Civic VTi's were about €1500 to VRT (for average milage 99 ones) back in '05, and increased to about €2,800 in '06 cause loads of people were bringing them in from England.

very good point, and about the only thing you can appeal regarding VRT at the moment.

IMO the OMSP should be challanged if you find a car cheaper, afterall its based on dealer (forecourt) prices, and most cars brought into the country are bought privately so the OMSP should be based on a private/trade in bases.

Seth Brundle · 11-01-2007 11:09am

maidhc wrote:

It doesn't. The fact all other countries drive at the other side of the road does!

LHD or RHD is irrelevant! Im entitled under EU law to go to any dealer and order a car with the wheel on whatever side I wish!

maidhc wrote:

VRT is an equal burden tax, and does not discriminate: every car owner must pay it, irrespecive of where the car comes from.

It discriminates against larger engines!
It discriminates against those who want to add extra safety features to their cars!
It discriminates us against other Europoeans who don't have to pay it!
It discriminates towards those who import a car after owning it abroad for more than 6 months!

ninty9er · 11-01-2007 12:11pm

I'm against the concept of VRT, but consider the Irish market without it. S/H cars would have no value becaue most people would buy new, creating more problems.

When I quizzed McCreevy on it, he said a 2% increase in the 20% PAYE rate would likely cover all losses, but vrt has a stabilising effect as well as being a nuisance to motorists.

And OP

VRT is NOT ILLEGAL because it is not a tax on import.

and Kbannon, if you're in for tax harmonisation then you have no clue how our economy is as successful as it is.
Because comparing vrt to other countries' taxes advocates that. They pay 57% income tax in Sweden and more for their cars....go figure...feel good that it's not that bad

Wishbone Ash · 11-01-2007 12:41pm

Mc-BigE wrote:

OMSP should be based on a private/trade in bases

Well then it could hardly be called the Open Market Selling Price.

kbannon wrote:

LHD or RHD is irrelevant! Im entitled under EU law to go to any dealer and order a car with the wheel on whatever side I wish!

AFAIK if you order a RHD car from a dealer in a country which drives in the right, they will charge a lot more to get it in, thereby probably cancelling any potential saving.

I think many posters are missing the point re VRT. If it was abolished in the morning, the tax would be applied somewhere else. Is it not better that people who can afford to pay it are levied rather than placing an additional tax on items which may affect more disadvantaged people? Despite all the gripes about VRT, it hasn't stopped people importing vehicles. And also, there is no VRT applicable on some vehicles and a nominal €50 on many others. We have a relatively low income tax rate.

Would people prefer to see VRT abolished and the income tax rate raised to 55%?

Mc-BigE · 11-01-2007 12:58pm

Wishbone Ash wrote:

Well then it could hardly be called the Open Market Selling Price.

Yes , but its very hard to get a straight answer regarding the VRO's calculation of OSMP, and more importantly why certain models BMW/AUDI etc can fluctuate up as well as down as time goes by.

"OPEN" Market my ar$e!, more like "dictator" Market:mad:

Blazer · 11-01-2007 1:00pm

Wishbone Ash wrote:

Well then it could hardly be called the Open Market Selling Price.

AFAIK if you order a RHD car from a dealer in a country which drives in the right, they will charge a lot more to get it in, thereby probably cancelling any potential saving.

I think many posters are missing the point re VRT. If it was abolished in the morning, the tax would be applied somewhere else. Is it not better that people who can afford to pay it are levied rather than placing an additional tax on items which may affect more disadvantaged people? Despite all the gripes about VRT, it hasn't stopped people importing vehicles. And also, there is no VRT applicable on some vehicles and a nominal €50 on many others. We have a relatively low income tax rate.

Would people prefer to see VRT abolished and the income tax rate raised to 55%?

Why should we have to subsidize it? The goverment can afford to waste billions of our hard earned money on wasteful projects, they can afford to feather their nests and claim more than one pension etc, they can afford to write off artists's taxes, they can afford to write off horse stud fees (think it was changed lately but not sure). So the Goverment more than rakes in enough tax to cover VRT losses. Think of the income from stamp duty!!.
The thing is we've become acclimatised to believing that if we gain something then the goverment will take it away some other way via stealth taxes etc. We (the public) shouldn't accept this. However if anyone can think of a solution I'll be all for it

ninty9er · 11-01-2007 1:17pm

There is a fallacy in calling VRT comparatively unjust within the EU, but that's not for a motors forum...A government runs a surplus when the economy allows and a deficit when the economy pulls that way.

It's fairly compicated economics, but much more tax revenue than we currently give our government to spend is neede to fix all the things people want fixed

smash · 11-01-2007 1:26pm

a group of car dealers tried to raise a case against VRT a while back and it was thrown out, I've never heard of anyone winning a case.

Sangre · 11-01-2007 2:54pm

astraboy wrote:

It is against the free movement of goods and services that the EU was founded on. Basically it means I can bring a good from england say, and not have to pay excessive taxes to bring it to Ireland. Take a powerboat. I buy this in England, pay Vat there and bring it home for my own use no problem. A car however, will need to be registered. By forcing people to pay VRT when they register a vehicle it violates that principle. It discourages people going to other EU countries to source their cars at a cheaper price.

The cost of registration should be the cost of administraion of registering your vehicle, nothing more. Its less then 50 pounds in Britian.

Freedom of movement in no way affects a member states ability to tax goods and services in its sovereignty if the tax system doesn't indiscriminate against other member states.

For example you can't tax French beer more than Irish beer etc,.
(Its a fair bit more complicated than that but thats the crux of it)

Hence why I can't see VRT being 'illegal'.

Also EU says nothing about a country imposing 'double tax'.

maidhc · 11-01-2007 5:02pm

Sangre wrote:

For example you can't tax French beer more than Irish beer etc,.
(Its a fair bit more complicated than that but thats the crux of it)

Exactly!

There was a ECJ case involving the french government and their equivalent of VRT. They had high taxes on cars over 14 (IIRC) fiscal horsepower. It just so happened no french manufacturer made cars this powerful, whereas the germans did. The law was incompatible.

The point here as far as the OP is concerns is that he must pay VRT. If he wants to get the money back he seek a reference to the ECJ. I'll be rooting for him, but from my reasonable knowledge of EU law , he doesn't have much hope.

Plissken1 · 11-01-2007 5:23pm

Stephen wrote:

They had a surplus of billions last year anyway, fúck 'em.

Yeah but this surplus will soon be swallowed up, due to the fact that we have little or nothing to trade with the rest of the world, and we are very uncompetative, with the economy being propped up by the housing and building boom. Like VRT, this is something the Government are trying to keep quiet in the hope that no one notices it, so by the time it all goes pair shaped the politicians can start playing the blame game, something along the lines of "it was like that when I found it", or better still they will already have retired.

Guy:Incognito · 11-01-2007 5:39pm

Stephen wrote:

They had a surplus of billions last year anyway, fúck 'em.

See theres where your wrong. WE had a surplus of millions, which the government decided not to spend all of and as a result, when the economy takes a downturn, we wont feel it hit as hard or as sharply. Will people appreciate this? not at all.

The fact of the matter is that6 170 odd thousand new cars were bought last year, VRT is not hurting sales. People can afford to buy new cars at present prices.

As was already pointed out, a couple of billion less in income for the state is going to have the knock on effect of driving up other costs. You WILL end up paying it another way, at least this way its all payed up front.

I'd love VRT to be abolished if other costs would stay the same, but they wont so better the devil you know. I have a 2.5 litre car that gets roughly 20mpg around dublin. If motor tax and petrol taxes go up to compensate for the loss of VRT , ill most likely be driving a small car for the rest of my days.

ninty9er · 11-01-2007 6:24pm

My friend's mom ordered a new car today VAT €9k VRT almost €18k, she had no qualms....it's the way things are

astraboy · 13-01-2007 2:20am

Its the way things are yes but why should we accept it. If we had a road system similar to the rest of Europe(not counting new accession countries) then high road tax/vrt would be fine. But our road system in many parts of the country is shocking. Granted, its imporving, but the fact of VRT really annoys me. It prevents Irish people from taking advantage of newer, safer cars as car values are inflated.

And VRT is double taxation in my book, if I purchase a car in Britian and pay all applicable taxes, then I need to come home and pay thousands to the government for the right to put a reg plate on my car. Vrt on certain jap imports has increased 300% over the last 4 months! This is due to the revenue believing the selling price of the car is more then it actually is. I'll post up a link to another site about this soon.

Vrt is another example of how the Gov treats the Irish motorist like a cash cow. They can charge us all they like now as we are the killers of the earth along with it all now.

Rant over!:mad:

Tanabe · 13-01-2007 2:55pm

astraboy wrote:

Its the way things are yes but why should we accept it. If we had a road system similar to the rest of Europe(not counting new accession countries) then high road tax/vrt would be fine. But our road system in many parts of the country is shocking. Granted, its imporving, but the fact of VRT really annoys me. It prevents Irish people from taking advantage of newer, safer cars as car values are inflated.

And VRT is double taxation in my book, if I purchase a car in Britian and pay all applicable taxes, then I need to come home and pay thousands to the government for the right to put a reg plate on my car. Vrt on certain jap imports has increased 300% over the last 4 months! This is due to the revenue believing the selling price of the car is more then it actually is. I'll post up a link to another site about this soon.

Vrt is another example of how the Gov treats the Irish motorist like a cash cow. They can charge us all they like now as we are the killers of the earth along with it all now.

Rant over!:mad:

Have to agree with you! Can anybody here explain to me why the VRT on a car I've imported was €1,000 DEARER now than it was six months ago? I'll tell you.....because of our HUNGRY ROBBING government:mad:

Once they see a car's popularity increase so does the vrt. This is nothing short of criminal:eek:

peasant · 13-01-2007 3:22pm

If one were to follow the argument that VRT is a necessary form of revenue for the state and if abolished other costs were to go up ... and therefore one wanted to keep VRT in existence ...

...then I would (in the interest of fairness) suggest the following changes to be made:

1) all revenue from VRT is ringfenced to be spent on transport only. Maybe that way we'd finally get a road network worthy of the name and toll free.

2) all VRT on new cars is to be calculated from the published list price of the car manufacturers PRE VAT price. You pay list price + 21% in VAT of list price + 30 or so % in VRT of list price - whatever discount the dealer is willing to give you. This way everything would be clearcut and double taxation would be avoided.

3) all VRT on imported used cars should be calculated on the basis of the "book value" price for that same vehicle in its country of origin. Every country I know of (bar Ireland) has such evaluation lists compiled and published by reputable organisations. In most countries these lists are even used by the revenue comissioners when comes to official tax matters. Just make them the basis of our local lists and not some arbitrary figure.

Captain Slow IRL · 13-01-2007 3:54pm

The U.K. may only have a set price to import cars but they are paying nearly double what we are for petrol. We are currently one of the cheapest countries in the E.U. to buy petrol - if they abolished vrt, they'd probably double (or triple) the price to make back what they are losing out on.
It's just a rip-off country to live in - full-stop!

ninty9er · 13-01-2007 6:50pm

VRT is an ad valorem tax. They're perfectly legal and based on a price which includes the tax itself and while I have issues with VRT and would like to see it become an election issue, it won't because people can afford it simple as that. Would you prefer to pay 5-6k every 5 years in tax on a purchase or 5-6k every year in Income tax!!

Seth Brundle · 13-01-2007 7:01pm

land9 wrote:

The U.K. may only have a set price to import cars but they are paying nearly double what we are for petrol.

No they are not!
http://www.aaireland.ie/petrolprices/

Boston · 13-01-2007 7:16pm

VRT is not illegal. (might have apoint about how it's calculated) VRT is an equal burden tax meaning irish car manufacturers are burden as much as any other EU countries. This is what people fail to realise, it would be only illegal if irish manufacturers where protected using the tax. They arn't, since there are none.

NeMiSiS · 13-01-2007 8:55pm

Boss ghot me to price the VRT on his new car.. Jag XKR 41,000 Euro, I nearly shat my pants.. he didn't seem awfully phased..
TK

MR BIG · 13-01-2007 9:02pm

So what if the government is able to make a lot of money from the people in vrt! What did they do before it was brought in? Could any off the wannabe politicians that are replying to this thread tell me how much the Irish tax payer is being fined yearly by the European Union for continuing to impose the illegal vrt tax?

aFlabbyPanda · 13-01-2007 10:36pm

ah VRT is not illegal, as per attached document Portugal has a simialr tax and is each nation is free to apply this tax as it requires.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/cm/536/536456/536456en.pdf

Tanabe · 14-01-2007 2:48pm

Just because people are forced to pay vrt doesn't imply "they can well afford it". Me hole. I had to ask a family member to take out a loan on my behalf whom I am now repaying in order to cover the cost of vrt on my car.

Blitzkrieger · 14-01-2007 3:27pm

ninty9er wrote:

or 5-6k every year in Income tax!!

What do you mean, "or"?

There's two things that are certain in life : death and taxes. I realise that I will always have to pay tax, but the way the tax burden is distributed is a disgrace and the way the funds are spent are a bigger disgrace.

Taking VRT as an example. We drive **** cars. Tax on new cars in other countries is lower so you tend to get more extras for your money. A UK dealer doesn't have to pay VRT so if a manufacturer sends him a car with a base price of say, 20,000 Euros with 5,000 Euros worth of extras, he knows he can sell that car at a profit. An Irish dealer has to pay 5,000 Euros VRT, the base car costs him 25,000. In order to make a profit on that car he can't offer as many extras as the UK dealer.

Not all those extras are luxuries - some are safety features that can and do save lives. Maybe the government could find the money somewhere else and we could all drive better and safer cars? Maybe we could get the Queen of Drumcondra to cut back on the rouge?

Illegal Government Law!

Comments