Mooney_Driver wrote:
The fact is, this situation with Germany is unacceptable
I think it is the entire EU. In the Swedish AIP it was related to aircraft flying from Norway and Island into Sweden. This “no obligation to declare” thing is when not entering a proper customs field as defined in the AIP. It’s not about who owns it, it’s all about import/export regulations of aircraft.
If I understand this correct. If I purchase a Swedish aircraft in Norway (happens all the time) and let it stay on the Swedish register. Then, the next month, I sell it to someone else. This someone could be anyone, could be a Norwegian, could be a Swede, could be German or Swiss 
If he then flies the aircraft back to Sweden in the usual way (with a FP and off to a non-customs airfield), that person is in big trouble. He then has to pay EU VAT because the aircraft has lost it’s free circulation status. He should have flown to a proper customs airfield and fixed the customs status there, renewed the “free circulation status” of the aircraft so to speak.
The “odd” thing (or maybe not for all I know) is that an aircraft is considered to be exported automatically when leaving the EU. It will however, not be considered imported into a non EU country, unless it has gone through customs, payed VAT, signed papers etc.
I wonder. The aircraft in the original post of this thread, was it a Swiss registered aircraft or a German registered aircraft?
Swiss Register.
And it was a bog normal VFR excursion flight, ppl, no intention to sell, no intention to leave it in the EU.
It appears that the only reason the German customs got away with this abuse is that there was no war chest big enough to fight it through the courts. Which makes it clear, operate into Germany and have a 1 mio legal cost insurance or forget it.
I wonder when this will be the next insurance which we will have to have after third party, passenger and hull. I have one but will have to make sure it covers me sufficiently. If that is not available, then forget going to those special customs German places.
AF wrote:
In Bosco’s case, the pilot was charged 7.7% duty (which might be a frightening amount in case of an Ovation), but he got off the hook for the VAT chargeHow do they even calculate this anyway?
There’s an easy court case right there… prove how you calculated that value.
Again, this is a tax case. The burden of proof is the other way round. The taxpayer has to prove in court a different value, not the tax office prove the value they assessed. From the court decision, customs just took the model and build year of the plane, and made an estimate of its value based on that information, and taxed based on that estimated value.
LeSving wrote:
If I purchase a Swedish aircraft in Norway (happens all the time) and let it stay on the Swedish register. Then, the next month, I sell it to someone else. (…) He then has to pay EU VAT because the aircraft has lost it’s free circulation status. (…)
If he bought the aircraft from you in Norway, then yes, unless Norway has some special status/arrangement that I’m not aware of. If I were that buyer, I would insist that you bring the plane into Sweden before I buy it.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Swiss Register.
That kind of makes it all blurry again
This a tax case only on the surface. In reality, at least in my mind, this is a case where the German state is in breach of international law, e.g. the Istanbul Convention, see earlier posts by other forumites here. THAT is the issue and should be addressed in legal action at EU level.
Secondly, the Istanbul Convention requires that means of transport (including light aircraft) must be granted temporary admission free of tax/duty by the EU and any other Contracting State. The European Commission website states that no formalities are required for such temporary admission in the EU.
I concur, not because German law may have different provisions (it is claimed that it does i.e. landing at a non customs AD exempts the State from those ICAO obligations) but because you could land in an emergency situation and then the same strict liability on tax still applies. The same rulings would apply to a mayday situation.
I’d contribute to a legal action fund serious about bringing change in Europe.
AOPA didn’t want to get too political in the US, but at some point they realized, it’s a game, and you have to play.
It’s $70 a year there. Plus donations for specific actions.
Why don’t we start and EAOPA for just these reasons?
It appears to me, on the face of it, that the existing organizations either aren’t working as a team, or they’ve given up fighting a real fight.
Large gains have been made in EASA land over the last few years, and that is awesome.
This insanity over taxes needs to be addressed at the EU level.
Clearly, there is some awareness in the community about the conventions being violated, and that must be clear elsewhere as well.
If we pitch it as a safety problem (no-one will declare an emergency over Germany for fear of this issue) we will have the moral high ground.
AF wrote:
If we pitch it as a safety problem (no-one will declare an emergency over Germany for fear of this issue) we will have the moral high ground.
Actually it is the other way round. I did talk to a Swiss pilot who got a nice letter from German customs saying that he did violate the customs rules but as he did this because he declared the need to proceed to another airport for weather reasons it was ok but they still wanted to remind him of the rules.
It is an abuse of power on customs side, I doubt it could happen on a mayday (tough nothing prevents it as things stands now, or simply one is better off financially pulling a forced landing on a road checkpoint), however, it is not something I would now take lightly for say weather diversion in Germany
I don’t have full details for the case (does pilot reside in Germany? has he sold/import a Swiss reg in Germany before?) but it can’t be that simple: landing at non-customs = import = pay TVA, irrespective of circumenstances?
