The Taxation of Petrol-electric Vehicles.
Page 39
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE decision of Mr. Justice .Clauson in the Chancery Division in an . action brought against. the Kent County Council and the Minister of TranSport concerning the classification. of. what is known " as the petrol-electric vehicle Was certainly unexpected by the industry concerned in the manufacture of 'commercial motors and by the transport industry, .be cause ever since the Finance Act of 1920 imposed the tax' on goods vehicles by unladen weights licensing authorities have succeeded in maintaining the argument that the petrolelectric vehicle came, for the purposes of taxa tion, within the classification • described as "vehicle propelled by steam or internal-com bustion engine." 'Mr. Justice Clauson has decided that it comes within the classification of "electrically propelled vehicle."
The result will be a substantial saving in the annual licence fee, amounting, in the case of all vehicles that fall within the 2-ton class and upwards, to as much as 50 per cent.
In considering the matter, as we have done very carefully since the judgment was given, . we should feel doubtful as to the wisdom of an appeal by the defendants in the case,' because the judgment was not upon any queStion of law but upon the interpretation which the court was asked to put upon the unqualified wording of the Finance Act of 1920 (the amendment in the Finance Act of 1926 was not important).
The words used in the Act of 1920 are "electrically propelled," and the judge's decision was based upon the popular interpretation of this wording, for, as he put it, the electric motor is the propelling force which makes the wheels go round.
Why the licensing authorities have hitherto succeeded in grouping this type of vehicle in the more highly taxed class has been because of the, argument that the prime mover of the vehicle, was the internal-combustion engine and that the introduction of the dynamo and motor was for the purpose of providing a form of infinitely variable gearing between the engine and the back axle. In these respects it differs from the type of vehicle which 'has always been held to fall exactly within the term "electrically propelled • vehicle," and which obtains . its .piopulsive force 'from. a charged accumula:tor, the current from which energizes the elec. .tric motor.' .
HOwever, 'the terms of the second schedule . of the Act of 1920. do not -Say that what is..to all intents and purposes a power station shall .not be carried upon the vehicle itself, and this was -the virtual contention of the plaintiffs in the 'action, for the petrol-electric is an electrically propelled vehicle carrying its own power station instead of carrying an accumulator which has been charged, from stationary plant.
The-Reason for the Lower Tax on Electrically Propelled •Vehides.
IT might well be thought that the judge in the ease above referred towould' have been right whichever way he decided, because the wording of the Act was indefinite and could have been read in both ways. That being so, we must go back to the genesis of the scheme of taxation proposed by the Act of 1920,1n which the licence duty on goods vehicles was based upon the unladen weight, with two divisions under paragraph 5 of the schedule, one for electrically propelled vehicles and the other for vehicles propelled by steam or internalcombustion engine.
The reason for giving a preference in the way of a lower scale of taxation 'on the electrically propelled vehicle was not in order to encourage the use of a home-produced fuel (because, of course, the accumulator is charged at a power station and in the course thereof the prime fuel is coal), but because of the more even torque of the driving wheels of such a vehicle resulting in less wear or damage to the road surface. The licence duties, by Unladen weight, ,.carrying capacity, horse-power, etc., proposed by the Act of 1920 took the place of the petrol tax which had been imposed . for the purpose of providing funds for the maintenance and improvement of the roads, so that the scheme of taxation was based upon the amount of damage expected to be done' by each class of vehicle.
r Bearing this in mind, one is forced to the conclusion that Mr. Justice Clauson's decision is the correct one in the circumstances, for there is more even torque from the petrol-electric
vehicle, whilst it is free from the tendency to create wear and tear of the roads by reason of the changes of speed in the road wheels when a change of gear is made, as occurs with the
• ordinary layout of the internal-combustionengined vehicle, and we have always held, on this lineof reasoning, that the steam wagon should have been included with the electrically propelled vehicle because of its more even torque.
The petrol-electric system thus receives a definite meed of encouragement, because, on the lower scale of taxation (taking as an example the 3-ton petrol-electric lorry not Covering more than 10,000 miles a year), the whole of the recent increase on the price of . petrol brought about by the imposition of the petrol tax will be recovered. There are about 2,000 petrol-electric vehicles in use in this country, and in the course of two years alone, during Which the present scale of taxation must apply, they will receive an added intrinsic value of about £100,000. We have included the whole of these 2,000 petrol-electric -vehieles in this particular calculation because, although many of them are now used for passenger-carrying, the present type of petrol-electric chassis, with its high frame level, must very quickly give place to the low-frame type and be converted to goods-carrying, So far as passenger-carrying vehicles are concerned, they are all taxed alike on seating capacity, whatever may be the chassis employed.
The Safety of Motor Coaching with Modern Vehicles.
MO advance in methods of transport has ever J...`t been made without arousing opposition and causing embittered attacks by opposing interests and those who consider that everything new or comparatively so must be dangerous. A recent example of this is the attack made against what is said to be the excessive speed of motor coaches. This was begun in the daily Press, and questions regarding it were asked in Parliament. The really important feature of the whole Matter is that motor coaching is proving itself to be one of the most popular means for transport and recreation that have yet appealed to the public, and at this advanced stage of development it would be quite impossible to put a severe Curb on coaching activities without causing a tremendous amount of hardship to the many thousands of operators besides restricting public enjoyment and causing inconvenience. •
The coach must march with the times. With the increasing state of congestion of our roads, particularly at holiday times, a slow-moving vehicle which could not keep up with the general flow of traffic, or was not permitted by law so to do, would prcive a far greater danger and Cause of obstruction than one capable of running at good average speeds comparable with those of the private car.
There is another aspect of the problem. The coach may, in certain instances, appear to be a somewhat cumbersome vehicle, but this is only because of its size. The modern coach is a marvel of engineering design. it may be capable of high speeds, but it is also practically as
easy to control as a private car: In the majority of cases it is equipped with power braking, and can be brought to a standstill in a -distance which would put many smaller vehicles to shame. Long-distance services necessarily involve fairly high average speeds, but why pick upon the coach as the chief culprit in any breaches of the law, when even some of our lawmakers do not, in their own cars, keep to 20 m.p.h., and the car is a far more selfish vehicle than the coach?
We would support the attitude of the politicians who long ago decided to proceed very carefully in the imposition of any restrictions upon coaching. We do not wish to, harp upon the old subject of the coach being the poor man's motorcar, but would merely point out that it is probable that any restrictions upon this means for transport would affect far more people than similar restrictions upon private cars.