Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[PurplePenguin]

The how far I've covered below, the how long is irrelevant if they don't move far enough.

Your ability to comment on issues you don't know anything about continues to amaze me.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Allegedly there's government guidance on people moving between moorings of a marina. I don't think there is, and a cursory Google search throws up lots of solicitors articles about this being a complex area and please pay us for some advice.

This suggests to be honest that PP is right to suggest that his nemesis Dan Niedle is being overly definitive, but wrong that he's gone as far as contradicting government guidance.

Purely on this issue (and not on other complications such as permanence of a person's residence on a bot, availablity for others to use etc) I do also think that Niedle is correct that moving around a marina to evade council tax that would otherwise be due is probably something that would fall in a councils favour in court, simply on the grounds that UK statutes are construed purposively.

If the purpose of a statute is clear but a strict legal interpretation leads to absurdity, the purposive interpretation is adopted. So, assuming (and it is an assumption) that 10 permanently moored boats in a marina would each incur tax, then I suspect a purposive approach would be applied to whether or not they ceased to be "permanently moored" if they all get together with each other or the marina to swap places and try to avoid it.

You can read it yourself as I posted it before.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/council-tax-manual/council-tax-practice-notes

Where a marina with berths contains both moored pleasure boats and boats whose occupants use them as sole or main residences the outcome may on the facts be either a composite hereditament, a combination of composite hereditament and separate domestic hereditaments or indeed separate domestic hereditaments leading to separate bands .


The presence of a composite hereditament may be indicated by identifying the following features;

• 
  
• Where boats that are occupied as an individual’s sole or main residence do not have a permanent right to any specific mooring
• 
  
• Evidence that boats which are an individual’s sole or main residence are actually physically moved on at least two occasions a year.
• 
  
• The boat that is an individual’s sole or main residence must be moved to a different berth not merely out and shortly afterwards returning to the same berth.

The presence of separate domestic dwellings within the boundary of the marina but not included in the composite hereditament would be indicated by ;

• 
  
• A boat that is the sole or main residence of an individual remaining on the same mooring for more than 12 months. If in that time it left for a few days , then it returned to the same mooring the few days away would be considered de minimus and by virtue of sec 66 (5) it would be domestic.
• 
  
• If while the boat is away the marina operator temporarily puts another boat on the mooring; but the berth holder always returns to his original berth, this would indicate a separate hereditament by virtue of the boat owners ability to exclude others and hence rateable occupation.
• 
  
• Where a marina operator reserves the right to move boats to different moorings but actually does not exercise the right.

It is possible on the facts to find both a composite hereditament and one or more separate domestic hereditaments in the same marina. The final decision to find a composite or not must rest with the specific facts of each ca

 

[First Aspect]

You can read it yourself as I posted it before.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/council-tax-manual/council-tax-practice-notes

Yeah, so you missed the word "must" in all of that. Neidle is assuming there's no movement such that tax is incurred, or voluntary movement between berths to evade it.

But okay, I advise on the interpretation of legal documents under UK law for a living, but know nothing. I understand your point now.

 

[PurplePenguin]

The rule - according to the Rivers and Canals Trust is that you should be continuously cruising. This means that you should be moving on every few days and not staying at any mooring for more than 14 days. Most managed moorings (i.e. near to towns) are 5 days or less anyway. Secondly, you should be travelling - so ping ponging between two or three moorings isn't allowed.

Unfortunately enforcement of the rules is quite limited. Ultimately you can be refused a license and have your boat removed from the waterways, but I suspect that seldom happens. I know it's taken years of working with the Evironment Agency, the R&C Trust and the Police for anything to be done about the slum boats and wrecks in the Hampton Court area.

It's worth noting that the interpretation of the law by Canal and River Trust has been challenged a number of times and they've had to soften it with each loss. Ultimately, the people that drafted the initial law were happy with people "bridge hopping" when they had a reason to, but this was drafted before large numbers of people bought boats because they were priced out of housing. For example, I think CRT now accepts bridge hopping if you have kids in school.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Yeah, so you missed the word "must" in all of that. Neidle is assuming there's no movement such that tax is incurred, or voluntary movement between berths to evade it.

But okay, I advise on the interpretation of legal documents under UK law for a living, but know nothing. I understand your point now.

I'm not saying that Polanski does or does not owe council tax. I am saying that to make an assessment, in line with the guidance, you need to know how much he changed moorings within the marina and the terms of his mooring. Dan Niedle does not believe that is relevant for the reasons you articulate; however, the government's guidance does think it is relevant, and for most people that's enough.

You'd also need to know how much time he actually spent there, and knowing he regularly did laundry isn't really evidence of passing a threshold.

 

[First Aspect]

I'm not saying that Polanski does or does not owe council tax. I am saying that to make an assessment, in line with the guidance, you need to know how much he changed moorings within the marina and the terms of his mooring. Dan Niedle does not believe that is relevant for the reasons you articulate; however, the government's guidance does think it is relevant, and for most people that's enough.

You'd also need to know how much time he actually spent there, and knowing he regularly did laundry isn't really evidence of passing a threshold.

That is what I am saying, but I also think it's consistent with what Dan Neidle has said, albeit his caveats aren't as clear as they should be.

 

[PurplePenguin]

That is what I am saying, but I also think it's consistent with what Dan Neidle has said, albeit his caveats aren't as clear as they should be.

On that we disagree.

Ultimately, I think my issue with him is that he states his case like a tax lawyer would do. His career will always have been defined by there being another side who argues back. If he wants to be a commentator, he needs to also put the case for the defence, but that would mean his hit pieces don't hit as well. Of course, so far he has been successful in building his new career as an influencer, but I suspect someone will bite back soon and he will lose some of his credibility.

 

[First Aspect]

On that we disagree.

Ultimately, I think my issue with him is that he states his case like a tax lawyer would do. His career will always have been defined by there being another side who argues back. If he wants to be a commentator, he needs to also put the case for the defence, but that would mean his hit pieces don't hit as well. Of course, so far he has been successful in building his new career as an influencer, but I suspect someone will bite back soon and he will lose some of his credibility.

I think it's fair you don't like his commentary, but I do think it's par for the course these days and not confined to him.

 

[Ian H]

...If the purpose of a statute is clear but a strict legal interpretation leads to absurdity, the purposive interpretation is adopted...

If only tax laws could be construed this way.

 

[First Aspect]

If only tax laws could be construed this way.

I suspect they are, I'm afraid.

 

[Ian H]

I suspect they are, I'm afraid.

For most of us, I think.

 

[briantrumpet]

For most of us, I think.

Controversial, but maybe this is why HMRC is doing this 'Max Tax Digital' for all self-employed people... this is what they estimate is not being paid that should be paid.

 

[icowden]

Controversial, but maybe this is why HMRC is doing this 'Max Tax Digital' for all self-employed people... this is what they estimate is not being paid that should be paid.

Does small business include self-employed? I thought it was just incorporated businesses?

 

[Stevo 666]

Controversial, but maybe this is why HMRC is doing this 'Max Tax Digital' for all self-employed people... this is what they estimate is not being paid that should be paid.

View attachment 15122

Some people on here should take note how a relatively small percentage of the 'tax gap' (as it is known) is accounted for by the wealthy and large business. There is also some good data from HMRC on the main causes of the tax gap - a fair amount of which is not related to tax avoidance or evasion.

But anyway, thanks for posting this Brian.

 

[First Aspect]

Some people on here should take note how a relatively small percentage of the 'tax gap' (as it is known) is accounted for by the wealthy and large business. There is also some good data from HMRC on the main causes of the tax gap - a fair amount of which is not related to tax avoidance or evasion.

But anyway, thanks for posting this Brian.

In fairness it's an HMRC estimate,.rather than a typically more accurate Magic-8 ball.

This doesn't mean we should not go after the £2Bn from the rich and well informed, but it does poke a bit of a hole in the silver bullet nonsense from the likes of the SNP and the Greens.