AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Chilton loses tax appeal

2nd April 1992, Page 18
2nd April 1992
Page 18
Page 18, 2nd April 1992 — Chilton loses tax appeal
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• Michael Chilton declined to tax his vehicles as a protest about what he sees as discrimination in vehicle taxation between British and Continental international hauliers, but he lost his appeal against fines imposed by the Stafford Magistrates (`Sound Off', CM 12-18 March).

Chilton, who trades as Chilton International, of Kingstone, Uttoxeter, was ordered to pay fines, back duty and costs of £3,784.98 after admitting three offences of using a vehicle without an excise licence and one of permitting a driver to take insufficient weekly rest (CM 13-19 February).

Stafford Crown Court was told that in each case the magistrates had imposed fines amounting to twice the back duty owed, when the maximum fine could have been five times the annual duty — £6,200 on each offence. Simon Tompking, for the prosecution, said the three vehicles concerned had not been taxed for significant periods, each having been sighted on up to a dozen occasions. As far as the weekly rest offence was concerned, the most the driver concerned had been able to manage was 22 hours on the fourth day of a trip to Italy.

For Chilton, Peter Da Mille said he had been waging a oneman campaign against what he regarded as unfair taxation rules.

His vehicles spent very little time on the road in the UK. There was no similar vehicle excise duty system in France and Italy, and a foreign operator could operate in this country for up to two months before having to pay VED, That gave them a distinct advantage, he said.

Before the Stafford offences, Chilton's fines had totalled £4,825.

He was paying off the fines and outstanding back duty at £300 per month. His trading position had deteriorated and since August he had been barely breaking even.

De Mille said that Chilton's campaign had stopped last May and there were no offences outstanding.

The weekly rest offence had been the only offence revealed by a check on Chilton's tachograph records.

Dismissing the appeals, and ordering Chilton to pay prosecution costs of £293.75, Judge Pardos said he had brought it on himself. 0 See Dear Sir, page 47.


comments powered by Disqus