Articles on the tax incentives for buying pick up trucks?

Hoorah!  Hard-working entrepreneurial mothers on benefits (e.g. Baroness Mone*) will be able to get their kids to school and keep the NHS running without fear of financial ruin from unelected civil servant jobsworths policing capricious government sumptuary laws (is this right?)

* Apologies - think she favours a different kind of expansive vehicle.

Quote:

“It was tough,” she says. “It became an unhappy marriage, so I compensated by buying diamonds, expensive holidays and cars. I bought a lot of cars.”

We've all been there, sweetheart.

Hirsute wrote:

WITHDRAWN https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-hmrc-double-cab-pick-up-gui... More wankpanzers

Excellent news, welcome relief for the hard-working people of Britain. 

Which lobby has a vice grip on Nigel Huddleston's testicles so tight he's willing to ditch the presumably months of work to get the ammended guidance in place, before sacking it off the very next Monday morning?

Spineless, disgusting waste of time, money and oxygen

Excellent.

From 1 July, HRMC will abandon the payload-based definition and deem any pick-up with a second row of seats as suitable for private use and therefore a car

Hope it's true, but it won't have any effect in Lancashire where the pickups like WU59 UMH have gone completely 'off-grid' with the agreement of Lancashire Constabulary

Hirsute wrote:

From 1 July, HRMC will abandon the payload-based definition and deem any pick-up with a second row of seats as suitable for private use and therefore a car.

That reminds me of the US loophole, where Ford used to import (to the US) Transit vans built in Turkey with rear seats installed, then strip them before selling them as work vans. That's because there is a 25% tariff on cargo vans, but only 2.5% on passenger vans.

Can anyone make an argument in favour of the policy?

The beneficiaries of the policy certainly can! Apparently, these vehicles are exempt from MOT, insurance and VED although I think you still have to pay for the petrol

wtjs wrote:

Can anyone make an argument in favour of the policy?

The beneficiaries of the policy certainly can! Apparently, these vehicles are exempt from MOT, insurance and VED although I think you still have to pay for the petrol

Really? I thought it was just about VAT or benefit in kind company car tax

Surely you have come across wtjs posting about the number of vehicles in his area with none of the above and the police do nothing despite repeated reports to them.

The one in the photo - ved ran out 30 11 17 and mot 6 6 17

Hirsute wrote:

Surely you have come across wtjs posting about the number of vehicles in his area with none of the above and the police do nothing despite repeated reports to them.

The one in the photo - ved ran out 30 11 17 and mot 6 6 17

didn't think that was just specific to crew cab pick ups-though

He's still around! Most nights parked for hours outside the pub, 100 yards from Garstang police station. He's certainly free from MOT and VED, although the police haven't yet publicly announced the Lancashire Constabulary charging scheme which gives you a pass to ensure that the police don't trouble you for them- I think it's only LC Specially Approved Customers at the moment

But LancsFilth are definitely expanding the scheme to respectably large SUVs 

And VIP Commercial Customers, of course- F3 BDL just by their big showroom on the A6, Preston

wtjs wrote:

He's still around! Most nights parked for hours outside the pub, 100 yards from Garstang police station. He's certainly free from MOT and VED, although the police haven't yet publicly announced the Lancashire Constabulary charging scheme which gives you a pass to ensure that the police don't trouble you for them- I think it's only LC Specially Approved Customers at the moment

MoT failed on the 23rd Sept 23. 

Do not drive until repaired (dangerous defects):

Offside Front Lower Suspension arm ball joint likely to become detached (5.3.4 (a) (ii))
Nearside Front Wheel bearing play so excessive that directional control is impaired (5.1.3 (a) (ii))
Nearside Rear Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (5.2.3 (e))

Repair immediately (major defects):

Horn not working (7.7 (a))
Front Windscreen washer not working (3.5 (a))

Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):

Nearside Front Exhaust has a minor leak of exhaust gases flexy pipe (6.1.2 (a))
Nearside Front Lower Suspension arm ball joint has slight play (5.3.4 (a) (i))

I'm assuming you're well aware that all this stuff was emphasised to the police  -and Andrew Snowden, Lancashire PCC, when the police were clearly following their Standard Operating Procedure and doing nothing at all, while making no response. Snowden initially said 'nothing to do with me, it's an operational decision of the police', and then began to refuse to reply as well. Note that neither body has offered any explanation like 'he's an undercover police officer' or 'it's a mistake that all his MOTs and VED payments haven't been recorded'. They just don't reply.

People who the forelock-tugging police consider toffs are automatically inducted into the Lancashire Prestige Club, so they never have to think of MOT for their new vehicle: MF70 VKS

bikes wrote:

Can anyone make an argument in favour of the policy? Did the government ever reveal the  reasoning behind it? Would a petition questioning the policy likely get enough traction for 10,000 signatures?

The government "policy" as such is just a way of defining commercial vehicles for tax purposes, which is the correct thing to do, otherwise it would be free-for-all on VAT reclaim on ordinary cars. The issue with crew-cab pick-ups being used instead of company cars is what's known as a "loophole". Over the years, the government has sought to discourage this by raising the BIK, it's currently nearly £4k, back in the mid 2000s when the manufacturers started putting more comfortable interiors in them, the BIK was only £500. 

Just make it so that if it's owned/leased by a company, it's a company car.  That way people can have estate cars instead of enviornment wrecking trucks, which they have because if you don't have a 1 tonne plus LCV you lose money.  More government stupidity in action.

Bigtwin wrote:

Just make it so that if it's owned/leased by a company, it's a company car.  That way people can have estate cars instead of enviornment wrecking trucks, which they have because if you don't have a 1 tonne plus LCV you lose money.  More government stupidity in action.

How would you propose the difference in BIK tax between company cars and commercial vehicles?