In recent days, new developments have arisen within the MRB exemption file with regard to old-timers. Vrijstellingoldtimer.nl -the initiative of the Autobelangen Foundation- held talks with various members of parliament and also spoke with the Ministry of Finance. Furthermore, Wouter van Embden followed the plenary reflections of the 2014 Tax Plan on behalf of Vrijstellingoldtimer.nl. There he observed that the support within the House of Representatives for not agreeing to the 40-year compromise is getting wider and wider. The opposition has suggested postponing the old-timer scheme until 2015. Nevertheless, Van Embden expects that the Lower House will not agree with the postponement next Tuesday. Yet there are still possibilities to move the most comprehensive part of the Tax Plan - the oldtimer paragraph - in favor of the owner and the sector again.
Movement
There is movement within the various fractions. Last Monday Wouter van Embden and Arjan Lenoir of Vrijstellingoldtimer.nl spoke with VVD MP Helga Nepperius. On Tuesday they had a constructive conversation with Wouter Koolmees from D'66. It was striking that Ed Groot from the PvdA joined the conversation. The conversation turned out to be very constructive. It also revealed, among other things, that in the First and - to a lesser extent - the Second Chamber has broad support for maintaining the Van Vliet Amendment.
New step
In any case, it resulted in a new step within the classic car file: The three largest opposition parties (CDA, PVV and SP) have asked to postpone the classic car scheme as now included in the Tax Plan by one year. Norbert Klein (50Plus) even announced that he would be submitting an amendment for this. Automotive interests applaud this, as it gives more time to demonstrate that the 40-year compromise is redundant. But of course people don't settle for delay alone. “Because”, says Van Embden, “postponement means cancellation. We just want a sustainable solution. ” The FEHAC would also like that. Bert Pronk's club is emphatically seeking affiliation with Vrijstellingoldtimer.nl, now that it has come to the conclusion that the 40-year compromise was nevertheless surprisingly - and on the basis of incorrect information - came about. "We would like to work towards a desirable situation together."
Weekers answers
On Wednesday 13 November, State Secretary Weekers answered various questions that had been asked the day before regarding the Tax Plan. Naturally, he also dealt with the postponement requests from the aforementioned opposition parties regarding the old-timer file. They were submitted by Farshad Bashir (SP), Roland van Vliet (PVV) and Pieter Omtzigt (CDA). However, the State Secretary still holds on to the existing compromise because, according to him, it yields "tens of millions".
Summation towards Weekers
The lawyer Mr. Cooperating with Vrijstellingoldtimer.nl. Tom Barkhuysen will in any case make an urgent request to the State Secretary. He sends him the summons to immediately remove the 40-year compromise from the Tax Plan. The disproportionate - the third measure in four years - weighs heavily for legal reasons. It is also a clear signal to Weekers and the House of Representatives that Vrijstellingoldtimer.nl continues to fight for justice.
European rules more important than factually correct calculation
The amendments and the tax plan will be voted on on November 19. If the requests for postponement of the opposition are rejected, Vrijstellingoldtimer.nl will go directly to the Senate. Van Embden and his team have been in conversation with various members of that political body for some time. That has an effect, because there, in particular, there is considerable support for postponing and taking a qualitatively and financially responsible measure. The cabinet and the majority in the Lower House, however, seem to have a different interest: the estimate of the amount that the 40 year compromise must yield must be politically justified, regardless of whether the calculation method is correct. Whether the money actually comes in is verse two. But if the budget is in order because of European rules, the incorrectness of calculations apparently does not matter. That is - as has come to light in recent months - the naked truth.
Ten years ahead
That is why the excellent contact that Autobelangen maintains is so important. Of course, Wouter van Embden et al. - just like the supporters - want the current regulation to be maintained. “However, the delay is the least bad option at the moment. Because we want to use the resulting time savings to work towards a measure that everyone can use for ten years. In order to possibly be able to achieve this, the support in the Senate is invaluable. ”
Agree with you my jeep would be 25 years next year, just 1 month too short, so it will stay in the closet for 5 years, so no income for the state of the Netherlands
Do not postpone anything, just make a decision and substantiate the thirty-year proposal so that the industry and the real enthusiast can invest sustainably. It is of course easy to impose new rules top-down!
In my humble opinion, demands are made without proper understanding!
My Oldtimer will be suspended for a long time (it has been stored for a year by the way), so don't need insurance and no MOT!
Fortunately a financial relief, except for the accelerated depreciation of the value (capital destruction).
Hopefully those responsible from the Senate will make a better study of the step to be taken!
Wish success and wisdom to everyone.
"Personal Action Plan" if the old-timer plan (law) goes ahead and that could just be done per 1 January.
Fortunately, there is still the General Administrative Law Act that, on the basis of the "Legal Certainty and Trust Principle", does not allow a decision (written decision) to be changed to the disadvantage of the person concerned. This would only be possible in the case of very compelling arguments, but not without the person concerned being compensated. In other words, the law can only apply to new cases (read transferred / sold cars)
Because I think that the judge will not accept the once-exempt cars that are now covered by the transitional measure a change to their disadvantage based on the principle of legal certainty and trust without compensation (equivalent to respecting the issued decision) my action plan is as follows:
1) Do not immediately suspend per entry date, but first request an assessment (otherwise you cannot enter the appeal procedures)
2) Immediately after the attack suspend the car so as not to unnecessarily incur the costs
3) To object (will probably not be honored on the basis of the then applicable new legislation
4) Appeal to the judge, who will test on the basis of the General Administrative Law Act
5) If necessary, appeal to the Central Board of Appeal (it will take approximately 2 years)
6) Massive Anyone who concerns it, have independent objections / appeals. (No waiting for trial processes, you will lose your personal rights)
The chairman of the "Stichting Oldtimerbranche Nederland" fully supports the above.
Waiting two years for the decision and then appealing again is not interesting in my opinion, it is all too expensive and too uncertain for me. I will just suspend my 1976 motorhome and my 1977 gas-powered car for 2,5 and 3,5 for years, that's a bit more secure financially.
And that time I will have to leave them if everything goes on.
I also thought it would be much fairer if we would have had to pay a maximum of 120,00 euros for that, the most km being driven by campers abroad and not in the Netherlands. for me that is 400 a 500 km P / y.
All vintage cars can go years ahead of a JSF plane. It is pure money, not an environmental issue. Otherwise the (cleaner) LPG would have been spared. If the whole banking crisis had not been there, no one would have ever started to think about the old-timers .. In The Hague it is also forgotten that the processing of all demolition-old timers is bad for the environment and employment in the branches around vintage cars are being turned around.
postponing brings uncertainty among enthusiasts and the industry
that's not a good plan
30 years and tax free for all cars and all fuels
because they are sold at the pump anyway diesel petrol gas
they are legal fuels that we use
weekers what kind of fuel do you fill up most yourself
for your oldtimers
if you are reading this think about that too
Why not like the neighboring countries from 30 years tax free?
and especially promoting clean LPG to protect the environment.
but, have other proposals been made for the oldtimers what the possibilities could be what is possible, he asked that in a previous message, to also make proposals