In many cases they might waive any additional fines for the attempted tax fraud on top of the due taxes – and this is exactly what happened in this case.
No, it is not. The tax due in this case seen “normally” is 0. He is being hit with the tax solely because he didn’t follow the procedure. On the income tax side, this would be similar to taxing exempted income just because you didn’t list it (as exempted income) in your tax return, or your tax return was filed late, etc.
lionel wrote:
He is being hit with the tax solely because he didn’t follow the procedure. On the income tax side, this would be similar to taxing exempted income just because you didn’t list it (as exempted income) in your tax return, or your tax return was filed late, etc.
He had to pay the taxes because he imported an airplane to Germany. He physically brought it in the country – that is what we call import! He wanted to use an exception to that simple rule but that exception is based on conditions he did not meet. It is that simple.
Tax rules are very different from country to country. Therefore your example of income tax on exempted income is hard to understand if you do not state which tax location you are referring to – in many tax regulations there is no such thing as exempted income. And the, yes, even with income tax there are sources of income that are automatically exempt and there might be others, which are only exempt if you follow a certain procedure and/or stick to certain deadlines to declare it. Failure to do so will lead to taxation.
But in general it is pretty much the same with income tax – let’s use the US as an example: If you put part of your income into your private brokerage account, that income will be taxed as will be the earnings from that. It doesn’t help you to say: Yes, but if I had put the very same money into a 401k account, I would have done the same things with the money but would not have to pay taxes. And you also can’t change your decision ex post and retrospectively transfer the money into a 401k. You have to pay the tax because you didn’t follow the procedure…
There is a world of difference between exposing oneself to a tax hit due to the above, and exposing oneself – by a fairly common act of flying a plane – to the really quite gratuitious hit described in this thread.
Malibuflyer wrote:
He had to pay the taxes because he imported an airplane to Germany. He physically brought it in the country – that is what we call import! He wanted to use an exception to that simple rule but that exception is based on conditions he did not meet. It is that simple.
That is very narrow definition of import, I guess it has to involve selling goods or basing them in Germany?
I think Switzerland exports lot of stuff to Denmark/Sweden via Germany? all those can’t “just exceptions”
Ibra wrote:
That is very narrow definition of import, I guess it has to involve selling goods or basing them in Germany?
No, it hasn’t. It is a very common exception that you do not import a mean of transportation but you have to declare that upfront or use a customs point of entry to declare it implicitly.
I think Switzerland exports lot of stuff to Denmark/Sweden via Germany? all those can’t “just exceptions”
Very good example: Yes, absolutely! You can’t just drive a truck full of goods from Switzerland through Germany and when you get stopped say: “I don’t pay customs/taxes as these goods are for Denmark”.
What you have to do is to stop at the German customs, declare that you actually just want to pass through Germany and get your truck/container sealed. If you don’t do that – and if you get caught in Germany with an unsealed container it doesn’t matter at all if you have a truckload of schoolbooks in Danish which are obviously not made for the German market – you have to pay the import taxes/duties.
The problem is not the rules! The problem is that we talk about Switzerland/Germany! If that would happen when you travel to Russia or China everyone would be happy to say “yes, of course, you need to be very diligent when you carry something in these countries”. Switzerland just feels too much like “Europe” to realize that from customs point of view its status is very similar to Russia, China, etc.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Ok, so you run an airport and you are basically responsible for the operation of this airfield. For me, this implies a certain amount of interest in all your facilities and how to use them, so you can be the single point of contact for any pilot who wants information and give COMPETENT advice.On a personal note, I do agree with you, but that’s unfortunately not how the law in this practiculair case works.
Malibuflyer wrote:
let’s use the US as an example: If you put part of your income into your private brokerage account, that income will be taxed as will be the earnings from that. It doesn’t help you to say: Yes, but if I had put the very same money into a 401k account, I would have done the same things with the money but would not have to pay taxes. And you also can’t change your decision ex post and retrospectively transfer the money into a 401k. You have to pay the tax because you didn’t follow the procedure
The mechanism for that is an IRA, not a 401K. The deadline is generally April 15th of the following year, meaning that you make the decision based on how your tax due for the prior year is looking as you reconcile that amount against what you did pay during the year.
Silvaire wrote:
The mechanism for that is an IRA, not a 401K. The deadline is generally April 15th of the following year, meaning that you make the decision based on how your tax due for the prior year is looking as you reconcile that amount against what you did pay during the year.
Thanks for the clarification – I have to admit that the money I put in my US 401k was always handled by a US tax advisor and the only thing I had to do was to sign a bunch of documents ;-)
Frans wrote:
At least for me, Würzburg is on my black-list. Their personnel is completely incompetent, regardless of how made the final mistake or not.
Yes, this appears to be the case indeed.
I had a small talk with a customs guy I know here and he said, the way he knows German customs, appealing that ruling was totally without any chance of success, however, what should have been done is pay the originally asked VAT, get a written explanation of why and with that, sue Würzburg Airfield, the Immigration officer who told him not to phone customs and DFS for damages in the height of the paid VAT. He said, it is well known that Germany is notorious for such things, even though the same thing can happen easily in Switzerland from a legal standpoint, nobody he recalls has been charged fully on the basis of a simple mistake. However, what is very dangerous in Switzerland is to drive an EU registered car or airplane as a Swiss resident, if the said airplane/car has not been imported properly into Switzerland, but is on a transit agreement.
If nothing else, this would have been a huge shot across the bow for all of those to start paying attention to the details which need to be published in the AIP and what responsibility people have when advising customers. I don’t know any German lawyers but I could imagine that a lawsuit against the said parties would have been more successful than trying to challenge customs.
Received today.
“I have to change the information I gave to you. Recently a change of the relevant customs regulation took effect. This regulations states that what you asked for. If you enter Germany/EU temporarily with your non-EU means of transport (temporary admission) or return with an EU registered means of transport (returned goods) and do not carry along goods that are subject to restrictions or import duties, you can cross the border offside of a customs office via the green border.”
From
Generalzolldirektion
Zentrale Auskunft
(Central Information Unit of the German customs administration)
Postfach 10 07 61
01077 Dresden
For non-German speakers, “green border” is the litteral translation of “grüne Grenze” i.e. all the crossing points between Switzerland and Germany that do not have a customs office.
