Argumentation of opponents MRB exemption is unfounded.

By: Erik van Putten

Vrijstellingoldtimer.nl is preparing itself for the final agreement to cancel the intended adjustment or abolition of the exemption rules. I have said it many times through these columns: Wouter van Embden and associates are taking major steps to persuade The Hague to maintain the current arrangement. Passionate, well-founded and well-argued.

Opponents
In the meantime, there is still a group of opponents of the MRB Exemption. And that has nothing to do with a preference (or lack thereof) for the older car. The relevant category of opponents uses very different criteria. They are concerned with the question "If I have to pay road tax, then the other person must do it too." That is completely unfounded, because everything shows that the opponent is totally unaware of the problems surrounding the MRB exemption file. And therefore provides unfounded criticism, but overlooks a number of things.

Leasing company pollutes a lot more on an annual basis
We know nothing about the fact that the lease car drivers cause much more emissions than the old-timer owner. You often hear that "it is right" that lease drivers - with cars in the lower tax rates - pay little tax because those cars are cleaner than a Mercedes 190 D or a wonderfully young 5 series from the eighties. If you look at emissions while driving, that's right. Per kilometer, that is. But the opponent is not aware of the emissions that, for example, go up during the charging of an EV because coal-fired power stations do not produce the energy in question sustainably. And I also hear nothing about the number of business and private kilometers driven per year. If you compare that with the annual mileage of an oldtimer or youngtimer, and multiply that by the emissions per kilometer of the 14% addition car, then some explanation about negligible environmental pollution of the old car is unnecessary.

Negligible share
Vrijstellingoldtimer.nl confirmed this lecture once again this week. Wouter van Embden cum suis presented a new report showing that only 1,1% of the total kilometers driven by all Dutch cars - at home and abroad - is accounted for by the category of cars that fall under the proposed new exemption scheme. The expectation is therefore justified that the 1,1% stabilizes because with the import of cars from after 1984 it is no longer going so fast. In any case, with this next step, Vrijstellingoldtimer.nl clearly demonstrated that the original environmental argumentation of The Hague is based on completely wrong assumptions.

Proper and well-considered use of tax rules
But the opponent of course does not give up easily. Because the word "tax abuse" is also a winged term. In relation to the old car owner, the term "good and well-considered use of the offered tax scheme" fits better. But if the old-timer owner is driving on a road tax-free basis, then the term abuse is out of the air. In other words: the old-timer owner deceives the tax authorities according to the opponent. While it does nothing more and less than use a tax rule. Or would the opponent with his own home not deduct his mortgage interest? Or do you not apply for allowances if they are entitled to them? Because he or she finds that a form of abuse. Oh no? The abuse opinion cannot be taken seriously, just like the messenger, who apparently does not realize that non-payment of MRB is compensated by - for example - higher maintenance costs.

Drastic
What is very serious is that 92% of old-timer owners do not want to or cannot pay the full MRB if the exemption rules are adjusted. The purpose of use of the old car is therefore drastically different. That emerged from the excellent survey of Vrijstellingoldtimer.nl. Together with the negligible share of kilometers driven by "the affected group", Van Embden et al. Have additional assets to convince The Hague that the current regulation must be maintained. A scheme that ensures that hundreds of millions in tax money are guaranteed.

A scheme that - for conservation - is one of the few financial windfalls of recent years for the State Treasury. Which also benefits the opponent from the exemption. Without having to commit abuse.