Has VRT been legally challenged in this country or Europe + other questions

Z

z104

Guest
I know it's been brought up in the motoring section but since this is a legal question I thought it deserves to be seen here.

So, If there are any solicitors out there I'd like to hear your comments?


1)On what grounds/points of Irish/European law can VRT be challenged.
2)Likelyhood of being successful
3) If it hasn't been challenged; then why not.
4) Can your car be legally confiscated for not paying vrt .
5)If you want to tax your car without PAYING VRT, can you be legally refused and then have the car taken off you because you don't have a tax disc even though you asked for it to be taxed.

Has anybody on AAM ever refused to pay VRT?
 
www.irishdrivers.org these are the guys to ask . they seem to be very involved with the issue. I think its hypocritical to ask the Irish people to ratify the "reformed" treaty in the upcoming referendum and at the same time deny us access to cars at the price levels of our European neighbors.
 
Of course, in the unlikely event that it was successfully challenged, one or more of the following outcomes will arise;

1) Public services will be cut
2) Other taxes will be increased
3) Borrowing will be increased
 
It would make you wonder about the fundamentals of this country that the economy would so adversely be affected by this tax . UNFAIR TAX IMO.
 
RainyDay said:
Of course, in the unlikely event that it was successfully challenged, one or more of the following outcomes will arise;

1) Public services will be cut
2) Other taxes will be increased
3) Borrowing will be increased
Click to expand...

Two points:

(a) what you say may be true, but I don't see what the problem would be if it were: so what? people aren't complaining with "I don't like paying tax": they are complaining "I don't like paying an unfair tax, that also happens to be anti-consumer and anti-competitive"

(b) there's plenty of evidence to you may be wrong, and that taxation is not a zero-sum calulation as you assume. For example, capital gains tax revenue went up some years ago when the rate was reduced radically. VAT, car-tax and fuel tax revenues would all go up if VRT was abolished, even if the rates were untouched, as more cars would inevitably be sold.
 

I agree that it is it is not necessarily a zero-sum game. However, I'd suggest that those proposing abolishing VRT should provide a sensible set of figures showing clearly how the shortfall will be met. I don't accept the much-quoted-PD maxim that reduction of the CGT rates caused the increase in CGT take. THe fact that the two happened at the same time does not show that one caused the other. They also happened at the time of a huge property boom and dot-com boom, which will obviously have had a significant impact on the tax take.
 
Ah, so you want to have someone take out their crystal ball and tell you how much abolishing VRT would really cost?

Given that the experts (Revenue) have been consistently wrong in estimating tax takes even 1/4 year in advance for years now, whose crystal ball would you like to use?

Speaking of consistency, how do you square "it is it is not necessarily a zero-sum game" with "one or more of the following outcomes will arise" followed by three options implying a zero sum between them?
 


This was not just a "PD maxim" but an economic correlation that is now accepted by most people across the political spectrum. (Btw, iirc Charlie McCreevy, who introduced the measure, was a member of FF, not the PDs). Of course, the consensus may be wrong but it is a fact that the 40% CGT rate that applied pre-1998 acted as a major deterrent towards people selling property. As such, the 40% rate was actually reducing the volume of transactions, and suppressing govt revenue from this source. The halving of the tax from 40% to 20% got rid of this deterrent, and the volume of transactions increased substantially. Hence government CGT revenue went through the roof.
 
ang1170 said:
VAT, car-tax and fuel tax revenues would all go up if VRT was abolished, even if the rates were untouched, as more cars would inevitably be sold.
Click to expand...

Its hard to imagine how a VRT cut could lead to more cars on the road, and more fuel tax revenues for the state, given that the roads are gridlocked pretty much everywhere as it is.

If I am wrong and a VRT cut would be likely to lead to more cars on the road and more people driving, then it is a measure to be avoided at all costs.

Otherwise you will have more traffic, more pollution, more road deaths etc etc etc
 
ubiquitous said:
Its hard to imagine how a VRT cut could lead to more cars on the road, and more fuel tax revenues for the state, given that the roads are gridlocked pretty much everywhere as it is.
Click to expand...

Simple economics: if you abolish VRT, thus reducing the cost of cars by a significant amount (between 22.5 and 30%), unless something truely remarkable happens, sales will increase. If they do, the take from the VAT also charged on cars will increase, as will anual road tax, as will fuel tax.

ubiquitous said:
If I am wrong and a VRT cut would be likely to lead to more cars on the road and more people driving, then it is a measure to be avoided at all costs.

Otherwise you will have more traffic, more pollution, more road deaths etc etc etc
Click to expand...

So you're saying that we shouldn't aspire to similar rates of car ownership as (for example) Germany? Fair enough, maybe, if we had viable alternatives (joined up public transport that actually worked for example), but unless and until we do, I can't see why motorists should continue to be penalised.

Even if you did want to penalise motorists, try and think of a fair way of doing it (fuel tax is the most obvious way).
 
There would also be safer new cars on the road if abolished.

I take it nobody knows the answer to the original questions?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Most observers accept that McCreevy was a PD at heart, regardless of what card he was carrying in his pocket. The timing of the reduction in the tax rate also coincided with strong growth in property prices and the dot-com boom, all of which contributed to the increase in CGT take.
 
The EU does not have the authority to interfere in the tax laws of any member State. Their opinions on VRT in Ireland are just that - opinions. In a nutshell, if Revenue come to seize your car, you cant quote some aspirational EU "law" as a reason to stop them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register