Expected life of yachts?

[tri - star]

To water addict:

I presume you are suggesting that various bureaucracies might
be out of sync. with reality?
Like the guys who spec. out $ 500. hammers?
Or authorize expenditures on sophisticated missile detection systems
that tested well in sunny Arizona - but failed to show anything
on screen - in rainy Western Europe ?!

Have to agree with you on that.

[Raggi_Thor]

But you are in Canada?

[tri - star]

Yes Raggi_Thor'

I live in Canada. However we get CNN here too, you know.
So when I responded to water addict's comment,
"....if US bureaucracy is any indication....you are out of luck
trying to change the opinion."
- And also as water addict, indicates that they live in Maryland,
( which I belive is in the eastern US ?) I used examples of
bureaucratic inconsistancy, reported by US media. As they
might have watched the same program I did.

Having lived in Europe, the US and Canada - I can happily draw up
long lists of interesting bureaucratic behaviour - ocurring in various
places.
As I'm sure you can, in respect to NORWAY.

Cheers !

[JPC]

Your question causes me to think that the owner is a corporate entity, rather than an individual, but I am more familiar with US tax treatment than that of the UK. This sounds analagous to a Section 1245 question under US treatment ("Gains from Dispositions of Certain Depreciable Property").

Has the owner, individual or otherwise, previously applied a deemed depreciation of the vessel's value as an offset against their earnings for tax purposes? If not, I would not expect the owner to suffer a deemed higher gain; if so, I would expect that higher gain to be measured according to the depreciation actually taken.

I suspect that I am missing something obvious/significant, but perhaps my question will prompt someone to point that thing out to me, at which point we will have either identified the limit of my thin knowledge or a basis to make progress on the question.

Best regards,
JPC

[1eyedjack]

Hi JPC

I don't know squat about the US tax rules. The vendor in this case was a UK trader (individual, not corporate) for whom the boat was indeed a business asset on which tax allowances had been claimed. It was originally intended to be retained for chartering, but the subsequent decision to sell at a gain gives rise to a tax charge and it sounds as if the rules that kick in are not that dissimilar to the ones you mention in the US. I really don't want to get into the tax technicalities in this thread, though.

[JPC]

Agreed! Not much fun to talk about tax on a boating forum.
I am not a tax person, so am only posing some possiblities of the revenue service's perspective.

I would not be surprised if the tax authorities were to impose a tax (i) on an ordinary income level against any sale proceeds in excess of (the original price less the sum of previously declared depreciation), up to the sum of such depreciation, and (ii) on a capital gains basis on any further excess proceeds.

Grim prospect.

There might be a means of increasing the basis of the vessel, and thus reducing the regocnized gains, if the owner made improvements that could be capitalized.

[longliner45]

there is reasons for 1000 dollar toilet seats , reasons for 500 dollar hammers ,,,,ie,,,harden bronse to not cause a spark when struck, just glad we can afford them ,,and f16s and criuse missles ,and all the other toys,,,,longliner

[water addict]

Originally Posted by tri - star

To water addict:

I presume you are suggesting that various bureaucracies might
be out of sync. with reality?
Like the guys who spec. out $ 500. hammers?
Or authorize expenditures on sophisticated missile detection systems
that tested well in sunny Arizona - but failed to show anything
on screen - in rainy Western Europe ?!

Have to agree with you on that.

No, not necessarily out of sync with reality, but possibly.
The govt body has a reason for their stance. If you are to propose another stance, then you need a reason for your claim. The govt is not going to change just because you seem like a swell guy and say so. You need evidence to back it up. Gathering that evidence, presenting hard facts will likely be a costly approach.

[tri - star]

We seem to be drifting off topic.........

Unless, some one KNOWS some thing - specific - about
the present British Tax laws {Which I certainly don't...}

I don't think there is much more that needs to be said.

Regards.

[longliner45]

tax laws? one eyed jack (asked ) how long do yatch last.....so whos off topic?,,,longliner

[tri - star]

The reason the question was asked re:

LIFE EXPECTANCY of a yacht - was because an

ACCOUNTANT, in BRITAIN - is searching for a way to convince the

TAX people, in BRITAIN - to give his client, in BRITAIN, a favourable take on

TAXEABLE INCOME.

As I've said, they need a BRITISH lawyer - Not us, boat guys......

Cheers !

[longliner45]

ok ,,ok tri star,,,,,,dont gotta yell...sorry,,,,,,,,longliner

[tri - star]

....sorry.. longliner45..
..looking for the volume control.

.......must have forgotten to take my meds....again.

[longliner45]

meds are good ,,,,,beer is better,,,,,buy the way Im building a spencer boat,circa 1969,,,,,,,original kit , barn kept,,,from john branlelmary launch date 60 days from now ,,,