Malibuflyer wrote:
1. I was never told that AIP will answer any legal question I might have concerning tax and border protection issues. I wouldn’t even think about consulting the AIP if I wanted to figure out how I had to handle tax issues. AIP is for the airlaw questions.
The AIP is the Aeronautical Information Publication which is the base for operating airplanes in and out of a country and airports. The information therein must be accurate and must be written so, that it is SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR to an operator what can and can not be done in a country or airport.
The way that some countries in Europe handle this defies the intention of ICAO on this matter and should be taken up to both ICAO and EASA as it is quite obvious from this and other cases that the publishers of the AIP wash their hands of their responsibility to provide this information, in this case customs and immigration at airports.
If an airport has no customs, the appropriate entry in the AIP would be - NIL -, possibly with the supplement that for local exemptions, the following contacts may be used. And if an airport has arrangements for customs and immigration on request, it should be arrangable via the airport operator, not the local police or customs offices, or at the very least, all 3 of those need to be at the same table and have the same information. Apart from that, using the words Customs in any connection with Schengen or Immigration is W R O N G, and therefore the whole entry illegal. It is high time that someone really takes this thing to the high courts to finally put an and to this misinformation.
The entry regarding Würzburg in this case was grossly misleading. So the pilot contacted the airport operator, who gave him information he believed correct (so the airport themselfs did not know!!!), then he contacted immigration who TOLD him not to bother with customs. If both of those are not authorized to give information, they should have said so or carry a share of the responsibility. Sorry, but this kind of bureaucratic lunacy is not worthy of a European civilised country but rather expected in places in the Indian subcontinent or elsewhere.
Apart from the fact, that it is totally ludicrous to claim an import of an aircraft this way. Otherwise, ALL cars which do not pass an official border crossing point would have to be charged likewise (and they are not and there are hundreds of roads crossing the border where people drive every day totally legally within the regulations.) To claim that ain airplane is imported because it flies for less than a few days in the country is simply beyond any comprehension. Had the airplane been sold or left indefinitly in Germany, it is a different story.
And while you are pointing your fingers at Switzerland for this, well, we have had cases like this as well, but they were handled with a small fine. The only case I am aware of where a similar measure was taken was the case of a sea plane operator who conducted commercial flights within the country at a sea plane meeting without authorisation. Not a private airplane doing a sight seeing trip with a few landings in between.
Ibra wrote:
According to Malibuflyer it’s crystal clear it’s an import (malgres-vous!) from this NOTAM, I suggest they re-write that NOTAM “+otherwise will be subject to 30% VAT”
“ENTRY INTO OR EXIT FROM THE TERRITORY OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF
GERMANY IS ONLY PERMITTED VIA THE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AND VIA THE
AERODROMES AUTHORIZED BY CUSTOMS AND FEDERAL POLICE.”
It is not at all crystal clear! What this tells you is that it is a breach of regulations if you land at a non-authorised airport, possibly resulting in a fine or prosecution.
In no way does it imply that VAT will automatically be charged on the aircraft.
Airborne_Again wrote:
In no way does it imply that VAT will automatically be charged on the aircraft.
That’s my point, I have to admit, I am less smart to see the whole legal & financial implications of my private flying when reading NOTAM like that, but it’s clear if you breach the rules you get prosecuted or fined, but having to automatically pay import VAT is just nonsense, it’s not obvious to me…
The key point surely is not that a pilot cannot read that notam (which anyway is not automatically presented – see e.g. notams for EDKA) but that the list of German airports is far from obvious.
It was posted in various places e.g. here. And here.
There are TWO lists of German airports which you have to know about. Right now I can’t find the post which had the names of all the airports in the two lists.
For one of many examples of what a crazy runaround this is for anybody but “local experts”, see e.g. this.
I have lost track of this detail but isn’t another key point in this “pilot bust” that the pilot was not a “foreigner” but had an EU passport?
T28 wrote:
If one can drive from City A to City B with a Swiss registered car in Germany without paying import fees (or even getting an import fee waiver) it is ludicrous to suggest using the privately-owned plane to do the same qualifies as “import”.
Fully agree if – and only if – you replace the “it is” with a “it would be”!
The regulation for cars is exactly the same as for planes: It is perfectly fine to import them for “temporary use” (i.e. w/o paying import VAT). Requirement is – both for cars as well as for airplanes – that you use an official customs point of entry and not the “Green Border” (not sure if that term exists in English).
Both for cars and planes, btw. it is not important if a customs officer is actually present as long as you use an official customs poe.
And before you ask: Yes, there cases that car owners actually had to pay these VAT because they did not comply with the customs point of entry rule.
Peter wrote:
There are TWO lists of German airports which you have to know about.
Not precisely: It is perfectly fine if you only know one of these lists. Just if the airfield you want to fly for is not on the list you know, you have to dig deeper. The rule is completely simple: If the airfield is not positively on the list, you can assume that you can’t use it as airport of entry.
Peter wrote:
(which anyway is not automatically presented – see e.g. notams for EDKA)
It is regarding entry into Germany and not regarding landing on a specific field. Therefore it obviously is not in the NOTAM of a specific field but in the NOTAM for the respective FIR.
in the NOTAM for the respective FIR.
Most pilots don’t get FIR notams.
Why have national border specific requirements in FIR notams?
Not precisely: It is perfectly fine if you only know one of these lists. Just if the airfield you want to fly for is not on the list you know, you have to dig deeper. The rule is completely simple: If the airfield is not positively on the list, you can assume that you can’t use it as airport of entry.
The lists are where, again?
Peter wrote:
Most pilots don’t get FIR notams.
They better do – esp. these days this is the place where one e.g. also finds the restrictions due to covid for entering a country.
Peter wrote:
The lists are where, again?
Google “Liste der Zollflughäfen”
Peter wrote:
Most pilots don’t get FIR notams.
Both SD and Autorouter give FIR NOTAMs. I can’t imagine that GP or FF don’t. If you don’t read FIR NOTAMs, how do you know about temporary restricted airspace?
Malibuflyer wrote:
Google “Liste der Zollflughäfen”
Is this list (pointed at) in the AIP?
“And before you ask: Yes, there cases that car owners actually had to pay these VAT because they did not comply with the customs point of entry rule.”
Seriously considering the number of Grenzgänger crossing both ways via Green Border I very highly doubt the “temporary import via a manned crossing point” is enforced or even has legal standing to begin with.
I will also point out that
doesn’t condition the import tax waiver on crossing at a manned “official” checkpoint.
