Farrari 4 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I guess the other question is whether the IRD is going to be interested in such an arrangement. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 IRD wouldn't be a problem, you can legally deduct the cost of the operation, if it were not a full commercial venture but an effort to offset costs then almost certainly would run at a loss, in fact you could probably offset that loss against income and pay less tax if they got shitty. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 If a case ever went to court it would need to prove INTENT to run a commercial operation. Seizing records, testimony... that sort of thing or even a "sting" operation. A weekend get together of friends chipping in to cover cost would be dismissed at the first hurdle. I do remember a case of a guy who sold "art works" he had done and those that bought them got a "free" flight on his plane. .... "gratuity".. the intent was proven that the purchase would lead to a fly around so the guy was found guilty as that was the intent at the time of sale. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 But here's an interesting question: Say you owned some super luxurious vessel (lotto?? and charged people to come aboard just to look at it, not to weigh anchor but remain dockside..... where does the law stand there!!??? That is quite quite well established. There has to be transportation from Point A to Point B. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 easiest way to avoid being commercial is to ditch the motor, or if you need that for charging drop the prop and shaft off the end. any vessel solely powered by oars or by sail is not commercial. as per the MTA definition. oooohhhh Ilike that idea. Are you sure Squid? Maybe they can't be used legally for commercial purposes......but should someone decide to do so, wouldn't that just add another level of offending? eg. Operating for hire or reward without the appropriate certification, and also operating a non-commercial vessel for commercial purposes? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 NO I'm not sure but I know Grant is well positioned to be informed on the matter, worth looking into. BTW no answer from MNZ yet. Link to post Share on other sites
grant 40 Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 easiest way to avoid being commercial is to ditch the motor, or if you need that for charging drop the prop and shaft off the end. any vessel solely powered by oars or by sail is not commercial. as per the MTA definition. oooohhhh Ilike that idea. Are you sure Squid? Maybe they can't be used legally for commercial purposes......but should someone decide to do so, wouldn't that just add another level of offending? eg. Operating for hire or reward without the appropriate certification, and also operating a non-commercial vessel for commercial purposes? I admit my initial reply was slightly tongue in check. It is correct as to what he MTA says, but what that actually means or how it would interpreted it is another story. you could say that a wind only powered boat cannot be considered commercial because of that definition, and take that to mean any activity on that vessel is not commercial, OR you cannot use a wind only boat for commercial purpose. Yacht club learn to sail dinghies would fit under the first interpretation, they don't need exemption from Safe Ship Management because they are not commercial (but you do pay money to sail on them), where as the motor powered support boats do have exemption from Survey certificates (and the Learn to sailors don't actually pay money to go on them) To get real clarity you would have to very carefully study a whole heap of legislation, some of which is in the process of being changed, all of which could give you a really sore head, and even then it will only be definite once someone has been chased through the courts and a ruling has been made. and as Dan has pointed out, this has almost nothing to do with the question first asked Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Its obviously a safety consideration? The rule (of commonsense??) says to have some means of auxiliary power, how are you going to "power" a sail only vessel that has no sails? If the MSA will not allow a sail only vessel onto the commercial register then its strictly pleasure only. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I must have been bored today, I found the relevant Act and read through all the definitions. And buried in the fine print at the bottom it specifically excludes payments by bona fide crew members. So my understanding of that is you can't take passengers, but, racing or cruising, you can ask for contributions to expenses from crew. It isn't spelled out but I would suggest the amount should be no more than the cost of running the boat so there is no question of profit. reward,— ( in the definition of the term pleasure craft,— (i) includes the payment (whether of money or money’s worth and whether directly or indirectly), to or for the benefit of the owner or master of a ship, of a contribution towards the expenses of a voyage by or on behalf of persons, or the owners of cargo, carried on board the ship during the voyage; but (ii) does not include the payment of any such contributions exclusively by part owners of the ship or by persons engaged as bona fide crew members Also I think Grant is right, a pure sailboat cannot be commercial. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 So if you were to take crew offshore you can ask them for a contribution to operating costs, what other paperwork should one worry about - an airline ticket out of the country?health ins? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Hell Squid!..... you have FAR too much time on your hands! ....interesting though. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Yeah, the boss thinks I'm working Link to post Share on other sites
DrWatson 375 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Ramifications?? NONE!!! Picking someone up off the street and "inviting" them to contribute is not illegal. Having an agency bring together drivers and paying passengers is! OMG, I never realized that would be illegal. It's a massive thing in Germany and Switzerland. Websites specifically to promote car sharing. It's a great way to get around and for others to share the costs of driving. The webistes have a rides offered section and the where to where and asking price is listed. http://www.mitfahrgelegenheit.de/mitfah ... lerance=4& it goes a way toward reducing traffic and parking congestion and increases overall societal efficiency. Shows how bound up in bureaucratic tape NZ has become. Sorry for thread drift. Link to post Share on other sites
wheels 543 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Also I think Grant is right, a pure sailboat cannot be commercial. Ummm, errrrr, of course it can be commercial. Anything carrying out commercial activity is thus commercial. And remember, your interpretation of the Law does not make it Law. Link to post Share on other sites
grant 40 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Ummm, errrrr, of course it can be commercial. Anything carrying out commercial activity is thus commercial.And remember, your interpretation of the Law does not make it Law. in common useage you may cosinder a sailboat commercial, but in the Maritime Transport Act "commercial vessel" is a defined term and it clearly states that a vessel powered solely by sail cannot be commercial. Thats not interpretation that is just a stated definition. now, how you believe that applies to a yacht with no motor that wishes to take paying passengers is interpretation, and thats wide open Link to post Share on other sites
rigger 47 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 now, how you believe that applies to a yacht with no motor that wishes to take paying passengers is interpretation, and thats wide open MNZ would not allow it to be registered to carry paying passengers... Link to post Share on other sites
grant 40 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 now, how you believe that applies to a yacht with no motor that wishes to take paying passengers is interpretation, and thats wide open MNZ would not allow it to be registered to carry paying passengers... agreed, however under their rules you could argue they have specifcally excluded it from their rules Link to post Share on other sites
PaulR 3 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 now, how you believe that applies to a yacht with no motor that wishes to take paying passengers is interpretation, and thats wide open MNZ would not allow it to be registered to carry paying passengers... agreed, however under their rules you could argue they have specifcally excluded it from their rules Therefore their rules do NOT apply and are knot enforceable. QED. Link to post Share on other sites
wheels 543 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 You would have bigger boots than me trying that on in court. Interesting though. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.