# Buying a car in the UK. How to avoid paying VRT?



## Sharky (24 Oct 2009)

Is it true that if i get a friend who has lived in the UK for 2 years+ to buy (me) a car over there and get him to bring it back to ireland he wont have to pay vrt because he has lived there for more than 6 months. He applies to get an irish registration right away and i take (buy) the car off him


----------



## mathepac (24 Oct 2009)

No and AAM does not encourage tax evasion


----------



## Ron Burgundy (24 Oct 2009)

he said avoid and not evade........


----------



## mathepac (24 Oct 2009)

IMO it's still a scheme to evade ...


----------



## Guest128 (24 Oct 2009)

Mathepac, your attitude is a typical Irish reaction to this type of thing. When millionaires do similar such as making their wives resident in Italy and use cinderalla clauses to save sh!t loads of money on the advise of their accountants its tax avoidance, but when Joe Soap does something similar to save 3 or 4 grand its tax evasion. If the OP is correct about the 6month rule and no VRT he is dead right to exploit it - come down of your high horse Mathepac!


----------



## DavyJones (24 Oct 2009)

that is correct, but to my understanding your friend can only do it once.


----------



## manta356 (24 Oct 2009)

Your friend has to keep the car in his name for a year after getting it vrt'd on a change of residence. (free vrt if he owned the car in UK for 6 months),but he will be asked to prove his address in the UK,and provide utility bills in his name for the Irish address he is relocating to.
I think you will find that other people tried this before and the revenue know all the tricks.Do a search on here and you'll find many examples.
Back to the drawing board i'm afraid.


----------



## mathepac (24 Oct 2009)

FLANDERS` said:


> Mathepac, your attitude is a typical Irish reaction to this type of thing. ...


Hopefully what that means is that when someone sees a proposal they regard as tax evasion and that could get the proposer into hot water with the tax authorities, they tell the proposer  and help prevent them getting into trouble.


FLANDERS` said:


> ... When millionaires do similar such as making their wives resident in Italy and use cinderalla clauses to save sh!t loads of money on the advise of their accountants its tax avoidance, but when Joe Soap does something similar to save 3 or 4 grand its tax evasion. ...


I don't know what schemes or clauses you are alluding to here and I'm not sure what they have to do with OP's question.


FLANDERS` said:


> ... If the OP is correct about the 6month rule and no VRT he is dead right to exploit it ...


OP is not correct as I have already stated by posting ...


mathepac said:


> No ...


above. As has been pointed out above and in previous threads here many many times, Revenue have a strict protocol they expect to have observed; any deviation from that protocol is tax evasion.


FLANDERS` said:


> ...  - come down of your high horse Mathepac!


I have posted my informed honest opinion here, and, as per the posting guidelines  have not directed abuse or disrespect at any poster.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (24 Oct 2009)

mathepac said:


> Hopefully what that means is that when someone sees a proposal they regard as tax evasion and that could get the proposer into hot water with the tax authorities, they tell the proposer  and help prevent them getting into trouble.
> I don't know what schemes or clauses you are alluding to here and I'm not sure what they have to do with OP's question.
> OP is not correct as I have already stated by posting ...
> above. As has been pointed out above and in previous threads here many many times, Revenue have a strict protocol they expect to have observed; any deviation from that protocol is tax evasion.
> I have posted my informed honest opinion here, and, as per the posting guidelines  have not directed abuse or disrespect at any poster.



but your turned avoid into evade with no clear reason why, a loophole is just that.


----------



## mathepac (24 Oct 2009)

I didn't turn something into anything else - I stated that the proposal by OP was evasion  IMHO  and I stand by that.  I don't understand what you mean by "a loophole is just that".


----------



## Ron Burgundy (24 Oct 2009)

a tax loophole is avoidance, not evasion.

There is nothing wrong with working the system within the law.


----------



## mathepac (24 Oct 2009)

The difference is that in OP's specific case, the topic of this thread, no loophole exists, therefore the scheme as proposed is evasion IMHO.

I have never said here or elsewhere that there's anything wrong with working the tax (or any other) system within the law by exploiting loopholes.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (24 Oct 2009)

read the title.....does it say avoid or evade ?

What is illegal about what was proposed, its its illegal its evasion ? Nothing illegal, just a lot of wasted time.


----------



## Sharky (24 Oct 2009)

For the record i have zero intentions of breaking the law! I heard that it was possible to get around it in some way (a loop hole). And yes if i could avoid paying the VRT i would for sure.........sorry!


----------



## mathepac (24 Oct 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> read the title.....does it say avoid or evade ? ...


I read the thread title carefully and as already stated,  I addressed myself to the proposal made by OP - this was an elaboration on the question posed in the thread title.


Ron Burgundy said:


> ... What is illegal about what was proposed, its its illegal its evasion ? ...


I never commented on legality or illegality; I gave my opinion that OP's proposal was evasion.


Ron Burgundy said:


> ...  Nothing illegal, ...


If you say so.


Ron Burgundy said:


> ...   just a lot of wasted time.


I don't regard time spent explaining something a poster is having difficulty understanding as time wasted, even something I believe I have clearly explained already. I have no problem trying to provide clarity where there is confusion even if I believe I didn't create the confusion.


----------



## mathepac (24 Oct 2009)

Sharky said:


> ...  I heard that it was possible to get around it in some way (a loop hole)...


They've been around the block a few times with this stuff and I believe they have any loop-holes plugged (apparently other than the blatant non-registration of imports)


Sharky said:


> ...   And yes if i could avoid paying the VRT i would for sure....


You and me both.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (24 Oct 2009)

avoidance is legal

evasion is illegal

you mentioned evasion so therefore were putting it forward that what the op was planning to do was illegal.........is that simple enough or will i write it in crayon


----------



## mathepac (25 Oct 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> ... you mentioned evasion so therefore were putting it forward that what the op was planning to do was illegal.........is that simple enough or will i write it in crayon


I described OP's proposal as "evasion" and stated that was my honestly held opinion. Any conclusions you reach about "illegal" and  "planning" are entirely your own.

I can't comment as to why you seem to be allowed only crayons to write with, but they won't be of much addition to you posting here. Again IMHO, your difficulty in this thread seems to be in reading and understanding my previous posts, not writing more of your own.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (25 Oct 2009)

No no you stated that AAM does not encourage tax evasion. That sounds like you stating a fact to me.

I'm not the only one who seen it that way, read above. Your alone in your view of evasion.

You said its a scheme to evade, if not not illegal how can it be tax evasion ?

You have failed to show how it is evasion in any way ?


----------



## PaddyBloggit (25 Oct 2009)

When I read OP's title and post I, like mathepac, read 'avoid' to mean 'not pay vrt' .... which meant to me that someone was asking if what was in their post was a way of not paying vrt.

Perhaps, the OP should have worded his thread title a little more carefully as 'avoid' is a synonym of 'evade'!

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/evade


----------



## mathepac (25 Oct 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> No no you stated that AAM does not encourage tax evasion.  ...


I did state that and I also stated that


mathepac said:


> IMO it's still a scheme to evade ...





Ron Burgundy said:


> ... That sounds like you stating a fact to me. ...


Excellent, it's significant progress to be able to recognise and acknowledge that.


Ron Burgundy said:


> ... I'm not the only one who seen it that way, read above. Your alone in your view of evasion. ...


Ignoring for a moment the obvious grammatical deficiencies in these two sentences, do you not have the courage to stand alone for something you believe in or is that might and mob rule make for right?  Intellectual discourse does not require rabble-rousing and courageously held convictions and don't require "ganging-up".


Ron Burgundy said:


> ...  Your alone in your view of evasion...


Moving swiftly past the grammar problems, being alone doesn't make me wrong. Again the mob-rule mentality undermines any intellectual value in an argument, as does missing out on simple matters of fact; please read the thread again, but, much more importantly, familiarise yourself with the Revenue's protocol.


Ron Burgundy said:


> ...  You said its a scheme to evade, if not not illegal how can it be tax evasion ? ...


Excellent, you got that one almost word perfect eventually, but again it's not up to me to explain your rationalisation of my posts.


Ron Burgundy said:


> ...  You have failed to show how it is evasion in any way ?


This puzzles me as a construct. On the one hand it appears to be a statement and as a statement I have to say it's false. As I did not set out to show how anything is or was evasion in any way, I have succeeded; as I just offered an opinion, that makes the statement false.

On the other hand it appears to be a question and as a question I have to say its puzzling as well in that it appears to be directed to me, querying me on  the success or failure of an enterprise I never engaged in.

Yet again the construct could be one of those typed out versions of an antipodean interrogative, where the last part of a spoken sentence is articulated with a whiney rising inflection, implying some form of query, but generally regarded as being rhetorical at best, risible at worst.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (25 Oct 2009)

and vice versa:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/avoid


----------



## Ron Burgundy (25 Oct 2009)

mathepac said:


> I did state that and I also stated that
> 
> Excellent, it's significant progress to be able to recognise and acknowledge that.
> Ignoring for a moment the obvious grammatical deficiencies in these two sentences, do you not have the courage to stand alone for something you believe in or is that might and mob rule make for right?  Intellectual discourse does not require rabble-rousing and courageously held convictions and don't require "ganging-up".
> ...



Attack me about grammer

I didn't realise this was leaving cert english. 

Read my 1st post, avoid not evade ( is the grammer correct.....oh sorry i couldn't care less ) 

Oh and i like all the big words, makes you look all brainy.


----------



## Arabella (25 Oct 2009)

This is better than the old fashioned Punch 'n Judy anyday. And far far less violent!


----------



## mathepac (25 Oct 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> Attack me about grammer ...


I've taken great pains not to attack anyone as to do so would be to breach the posting guidelines.


Ron Burgundy said:


> ... I didn't realise this was leaving cert english...


It's not - it's pitched somewhere between Junior Cert and primary school level.


Ron Burgundy said:


> ... Read my 1st post, avoid not evade ( is the grammer correct.....oh sorry i couldn't care less ) ...


I have but my point all along has been that the original proposal by OP is tantamount to evasion IMHO and calling the proposal a different name doesn't change what it is, again IMHO. As Juliet observed so sharply in  Mr. Shakespeare's play "What's in a name? That which we call a  rose by any other name would smell as sweet..."


Ron Burgundy said:


> ... Oh and i like all the big words, makes you look all brainy.


I've deliberately avoided using big words.


----------



## DaveD (27 Oct 2009)

I agree with mathepac that what the OP asks about is evasion. If you move from the UK to Ireland and reregister your car and are exempt from paying VRT then you cannot sell it within 12 months without the paying the VRT so the OP would save nothing. His friend could not "loan" him the car either as the Revenue stipulate that one of the conditions of the VRT exemption is that only the importer of the car (and their spouse) may drive the car in Ireland.

If you buy a car in the UK for use in Ireland you must pay the VRT unless you qualify for exemption (not your friend), it is the law and there is no legal way around it.


----------



## rokz1 (28 Oct 2009)

Good luck if you can avoid or evade the illegal vrt taxes..But sadly i can guarantee you that you wont.If you try to register the car under your friends name you will have to supply documentary evidence..which includes your uk bank statements ,utility bills, rent book,,pay slips,and also poll tax receipts.I have brought in cars from the uk and i believe that your payoff will be the quality of car you purchase.A little advice i can give is do not try a purchase from a private seller as the best quality cars can be ex lease cars that have been properly maintained but may have high milleage.These cars are normally been used for sales reps who spend there time going up and down motorways and hence very low wear and tear on the car.If you purchase one of these cars you may find it has approx 80k miles,but you will find it drives like a 30k mile car..and cheaper vrt..hence milleage.I recently purchased a 07 large toyota and only paid 2100 vrt.But this is about knowing the system.not evading...


----------



## bond-007 (28 Oct 2009)

DaveD said:


> I agree with mathepac that what the OP asks about is evasion. If you move from the UK to Ireland and reregister your car and are exempt from paying VRT then you cannot sell it within 12 months without the paying the VRT so the OP would save nothing. His friend could not "loan" him the car either as the Revenue stipulate that one of the conditions of the VRT exemption is that only the importer of the car (and their spouse) may drive the car in Ireland.
> 
> If you buy a car in the UK for use in Ireland you must pay the VRT unless you qualify for exemption (not your friend), it is the law and there is no legal way around it.


His friend could register here it for free and then immediately re-export the car back to the UK for a year. Nothing could be done about that.


----------



## rokz1 (30 Oct 2009)

You should read the above post"you will have to supply documentary evidence..which includes your uk bank statements ,utility bills, rent book,,pay slips,and also poll tax receipts..change of residence must be proven....final


----------



## bond-007 (31 Oct 2009)

> change of residence must be proven


How can that be proven if they want the car presented for inspection within 24 hours of arrival?


----------



## jackblack (26 Nov 2009)

Hi Guys
There is no way of avoiding paying vrt, That is if you want to pay it.
Vrt is a completely illegal tax that our government charge us.It is in breach of our constitutional rights and our european rights.The irish drivers association is challenging this in the high court and europe. It is your right to peacefully enjoy your property and the law has in fact no right to try and dispossess you of your property. stand up for your rights and go to your local td's and see how much they want your vote. All stand together on this one and do not under any circumstances let customs or garda take your vechicle from you. Read up on your rights, we are already being screwed with taxes on fuel and road tax.. Time to protect ourselves.We are in europe and let our government know. They wanted us there with lisbon treaty let them know our european RIGHTS.


----------

