Now its VAT on your new Carrier

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Nutty, Mar 31, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Todays Telegraph has an article which states to avoid VAT on the new Carrier BAE has to be named sole contractor.


    Its larf ain't it.

  2. It's not even funny anymore. Blind leading the blind.

    That said you have to say the Times journo hasn't done his job properly either. "ShipCo" was an internal MoD/industry designation for the BAe/VT hookup when Drayson was wittering on about his Maritime Industrial Strategy. The actual name for the entity has been public for a few months now - BVT apparently. Sounds like a nasty medical ailment but hey ho......
  3. Madness. Surely as the tax will go to the government the government could quietly add the same amount onto the defence budget??
  4. You make the mistake of thinking that government is a single entity. I'd describe it more as a collection of private fiefdoms with a roughly common purpose; getting as much money out of treasury as possible.

    That said, this looks like a serious cock-up, the regulations about priming are well established, hence the need for Single Purpose Ventures such as Atlas.

    The article is a little sensationalist though, BAE is the same as any other firm in the position of Prime, take the opportunity to leverage the workload and cream as much of the revenue as possible.
  5. Well the treasury with it's back to the wall trying to stop all the other departments spending all the cash it has raked in is for ever fiddling the tax rules applied on government aquisitions, so this one is not surprising. As Messy Beast was the major shareholder in Shipco anyway the new arrangement won't really change things. As for Messy Beast trying to maximise it's revenues, that is what their board is legally obliged to do, as not unsurprisingly the board of Vospers is obliged to do the same.

    As an aside, one of the things the government has done over recent years is to oblige UK companies to use their own R&D cash rather than fund developments directly, this money has to come from profits so to fund these developments more profit is required. The same has equally happened over the transfer of many of the risks to industry, accepting risk costs money, so more profit is required to cover this.
  6. Guns

    Guns War Hero Moderator

    I thought VAT was a EU tax and was paid in to EU coffers????

    IIRC the same thing has happened with the Olympics in London.
  7. If the carrier is to be any use then it will spend most of the time outside our territorial limits and should therefore be classed as export goods- free of VAT. ^~ ^~
  8. Yes - agreed. The concept of the Government charging itself VAT on something like this is absolutely barking ... but which of us is really all that surprised?

  9. Had an interesting (in the chinese sense) conversation a week or so ago with someone in government who wanted to transfer risk and put contractual clauses in place to try to make sure that there was no cost loading as a result.

    He also struggled when I explained that just wasn't possible!
  10. More info on the nature of VAT from the HMRC website

    It's all French to me! I need my sea dad Uncle Albert to explain it all to me!
  11. always wanted to know how much a carrier costs, illustrious for example.anyone know?
  12. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    I used to understand that the EU took the top 1% of VAT but whether that was 1% of the total VAT take or 1% of all txns I never did fathom. What it does mean is that the EU tries to maximise the VATting of everything.

    When Heseltine brought in the Council Tax Geoffrey Howe bumped up VAt from 15% to 17 1/2 % and said the difference would be used to reduce Council Tax. Of course it was just a matter of time before this was conveniently forgotten and Council Tax went its own merry way upwards.
  13. When we had our MQ-9 Reaper UAVs delivered, we had an RAF C-17 pick them up and fly them straight to Afghanistan via the Pacific. This avoided them transitting UK airspace and therefore us paying VAT!!!

    You couldn't make it up!

    Maybe you guys need to have CVF 'final fitting out' completed at some foreign tax haven then never let the things back into UK territorial waters?!

  14. Need to institue a programme to acquire beancounter countermeasures!
  15. TLAM strike during PMQs?

Share This Page