So you're at the pumps refuelling your privately owned DA42 or Centurion diesel-converted C172 wondering if there is extra duty to be paid.
Reading below, seems to be the case unless you're flying somewhere for maintenance or your passenger for the day is also your instructor.
I dug out the following definition according to UK tax authorities and wonder if other jurisdictions in EASA-land interpret similarly. UK HMRC's watertight interpretation is presumably opinion only; untested in court.
Seems like an inducement to always fly with an instructor when doing some general handling or maintaining instrument currency - surely cheaper then paying the extra duty..?
‘Private pleasure-flying’ is defined in the EC Council Directive 2003/96, known as the Energy Products Directive, as:
‘Private pleasure-flying’ shall mean the use of an aircraft by its owner or the natural or legal person who enjoys its use either though hire or through any other means, for other than commercial purposes and in particular other than for the carriage of passengers or goods or for the supply of services for consideration or for the purposes of public authorities.
This definition is also included in the Hydrocarbon Oils Duties Act 1979.
For these purposes ‘private pleasure-flying’ means flying other than in the following circumstances: - commercial operation or use of aircraft by companies for the carriage of passengers or goods as an aid to the conduct of their business and the availability of the aircraft for whole aircraft charter, flown by a pilot (or pilots) employed to fly the aircraft - the non-commercial operation or use of aircraft by a company, for the carriage of passengers or goods as an aid to the conduct of company business, flown by a pilot (or pilots) employed to fly the aircraft - the non-commercial operation or use of aircraft by an individual for the carriage of passengers or goods as an aid to the conduct of his/her business or his/her employer’s business and excludes the following (the list is not exhaustive):
Private pleasure-flying includes the following (the list is not exhaustive):
In Germany, numbers 3, 4 and 7 are not tax excempt. Numbers 2, 5 and 6 only if it is done within an AOC operation, the term "air taxi" has no legal meaning here.
What do you mean by 'extra duty'?
I often wondered how this works in the UK... Since the system is based on self declaration I don't think anybody wants to talk about it too openly.
But this avgas-like duty on avtur has killed the business case for retrofit diesels, totally.
I suspect the phrase
training, if provided through an approved training school or by a qualified instructor, and the trainee pilot is under the supervision of an instructor whether or not that instructor accompanies the student
was made up on the spot by HMRC, albeit by somebody familiar with flight training.
That's odd, I know when I was flying AVGAS powered aircraft for my PPL they weren't able to claim back fuel VAT. It seems unfair if it's charged for AVGAS training but not diesel.
If a school is VAT registered (an I am sure practically all will be over the mandatory VAT reg threshold) it can claim back VAT on all purchases.
It also has to charge VAT to its customers.
Same for any business operating a plane, on a business flight.
But claiming back fuel duty is different. Normally, in Europe, it needs an AOC. In most of Europe, producing the AOC (any AOC - doesn't have to be actually operated on that flight) will get you duty free fuel at the pump. In the UK you can't do this and have to put in a separate claim (like the Duty Drawback claim scheme which also reclaims the duty).
What the UK has done is imposed the fuel duty on avtur, which is supposed to be duty free by international treaty.
What the UK has done is imposed the fuel duty on avtur, which is supposed to be duty free by international treaty.
Where did you get this from? There aren't any tax treaties on fuels. It's just competition that makes it hard to impose taxes on AOC fuel. I think that it bad because it gives aviation an unfair advantage over other means of transport and it removes pressure from the airlines and manufacturers to come up with more economic airplanes. There has always been a fuel tax on non AOC avgas, mogas and jet fuel in most countries. The EU is trying to introduce these taxes via the CO2 backdoor which has the advantage of also covering fuel purchased outside of the EU.
What I don't understand is why the UK grant duty drawback on private international flights. It's money they don't get and I don't see a particular reason for that. Personally I appreciate paying less but on a broader scale I wouldn't do that.
"But this avgas-like duty on avtur has killed the business case for retrofit diesels, totally."
I'm not so sure that the case for flying schools. We operate a 172N and at some point the engine will need replacing. Hopefully at TBO plus 10% plus 10% but probably just as likely due soft camms.
I'm starting to hear good things about the Centurion engine these days and i know of an aerial photography company that operates two and has about 4000 hours on them and they are very pleased. They don't say the same about thierliet
So when overhaul time comes assuming it will be simply a simple case of what is the most cost effective. Sadly that might be a few years off as our 172 only has 290 hours on the engine, flies about 15 hours a month despite it being only 130 quid an hour wet.
Apparently the biggest problem in the UK with the Centurion engine is the lack of maintenance outfits who know what they are doing. Also I'm told the UK CAA insist of 50 hour checks whereas in Germany they can be every 100 hours.
Why would this prevent refitting of Diesel engines? The primary reason that failed was not taxation, it was the Thielert Bancruptcy. We will see how this develops now.
Over here, no private flying will ever get tax exemption, we are paying up to half the amount the fuel costs in taxes, they are however directly added at the pump. Avtur is still considerably cheaper than Avgas (around €.50 per liter right now) and the fuel flow of those engines are considerably less.
So while the tax problem is one reason all of GA has gone down the drain in recent years (up to about 10 years ago it was still possible for us here to fuel tax free when departing for international flights, something AOC companies still can do but nobody else, which in my view is discrimination against the hated "super rich pleasure flyers" by the communist politicians here, I don't see how it would single out AVTUR products in particular.
Nevertheless, if regulators could find a way to make Avtur more expensive then Avgas they would, as many enemies of GA are looking with eager eyes on the diesel front as they know that it may well revive GA. They have done their utmost to fight Mogas as well, making it much more expensive than it is at the gas station outside the airport perimeter by demanding "specific composition". It still is cheaper than both Avgas and Avtur right now.
