Double cab pick-ups - car or van?

Recent Coca-Cola case suggests double cab pick-ups are now to be treated as cars - right or wrong?

Didn't find your answer?

I am interested in the recent Court of Appeal Coca Cola decision regarding whether certain vehicles are vans or cars. The case was reported and discussed recently by the ATT here. The article might be read as suggesting that all vehicles with side windows and seats behind the driver should be treated as cars and not as vans. The writer points to EIM 23110 as HMRC’s view. The writer is not explicit on the point, but such a view would suggest that double cab pick-ups are now also to be treated as cars.

However, HMRC guidance at EIM 23150 explicitly points to double cab pick-ups being treated as vans, and HMRC have not changed their interpretation since the Coca Cola case began in the FTT.

It seems to me therefore that nothing has changed regarding double cab pick-ups that meet the 1 tonne payload threshold. Any thoughts?

 

EDIT - relevant points include the fact that the Coca-Cola vehicles were converted vans (Kombi and Vivaro) and payload was not mentioned in the case.

EDIT2 - am aware that HMRC interpretation is just that, only one possible interpretation of the law, and that HMRC guidance is not itself the law

Replies (57)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By paul.benny
19th Aug 2020 09:53

It seems to me that people can either
(a) treat double-cab pick-ups as cars; or
(b) continue to treat them as vans and risk a fight with HMRC

All depends on your appetite for risk and willingness to pay fees and penalties should you choose (b).

Thanks (0)
Replying to paul.benny:
avatar
By Mr_awol
19th Aug 2020 10:01

paul.benny wrote:

It seems to me that people can either
(a) treat double-cab pick-ups as cars; or
(b) continue to treat them as vans and risk a fight with HMRC

All depends on your appetite for risk and willingness to pay fees and penalties should you choose (b).

The article refers to the PCRT as offering protection for kombi vans, for a decision which follows existing HMRC guidance.

As such, I would be surprised to see any need for corrective action - let alone interest and penalties - for twin cab pickups where both prevailing practice AND official HMRC guidance has been followed.

The OP referred to vehicles "with side windows and seats behind the driver" but in fact the article refers to vehicles "with side windows and which can be fitted with additional seating". This is very different, as set out in my reply below, surely?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By paul.benny
19th Aug 2020 10:23

I don't disagree - but it's clear that HMRC are going after vehicles of this type that are being chosen as "company cars" because of their favourable bik treatment.

Thanks (0)
Replying to paul.benny:
avatar
By Mr_awol
19th Aug 2020 14:20

I still think the risk is very low to non-existent, and that nobody would treat a double cab pickup as a car (as long as it met existing definitions etc)

Thanks (1)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By gillybean04
20th Aug 2020 20:49

I haven't read it more than once but I believe the crux of the judgement was that to be a van, it must be mainly/primarily designed for carriage of goods and being equally suited to both or only marginally being more suited for goods would not be enough. With windows obviously pointing towards a design for carriage of passengers rather than goods.

In that regard, they may well revise the position on double cab pick ups. As they aren't primarily designed for carriage of goods.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Rammstein1
19th Aug 2020 09:55

I would agree that nothing has changed in the tax treatment until HMRC bring out further guidance.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Mr_awol
19th Aug 2020 09:55

cbp99 wrote:

The article might be read as suggesting that all vehicles with side windows and seats behind the driver should be treated as cars and not as vans. The writer points to EIM 23110 as HMRC’s view. The writer is not explicit on the point, but such a view would suggest that double cab pick-ups are now also to be treated as cars.

I think you've made quite a jump there.

The Coca-Cola vans were, I believe, of the type that could easily accept additional seating and could easily be converted (at home by the employee) between a van and a minibus. My friend has a Transporter T5 van/bus thing which does the same.

The fact that these were supplied to middle management types with no need to carry equipment doesn't help. Whilst it may have been their intention just to get a vehicle that qualified as a van for humping up and down the country, I would suspect that several of them (those with larger families etc) may well have stuck the extra seats in once they got the vehicle home. This would be typical man down the pub tax planning for getting a people-carrier(ish) vehicle taxed as a van.

A Pickup cant have an extra row or two of seats slotted onto the flatbed and be used for family outings.

So, whilst the judgement may well have implications for twin cab pickups, I think there is enough difference between the vehicles not to be overly concerned

Thanks (1)
avatar
By bernard michael
19th Aug 2020 10:01

My client has recently purchased a Volkswagen van and has been converting it into a double cab by fitting side windows. I claimed AIA in last years CT return when it was a van and have capitalised the conversion costs . Now it is a "double cab "pick-up. Client claims it adds value to the van/whatever. I don't believe him
Weird situation ??

Thanks (0)
Replying to bernard michael:
avatar
By 356B
19th Aug 2020 11:08

Will you be making a full disclosure to HMRC?

Thanks (0)
Replying to 356B:
avatar
By bernard michael
19th Aug 2020 11:13

356B wrote:

Will you be making a full disclosure to HMRC?

Of what ?? Allowances properly and timeously claimed

Thanks (0)
Replying to bernard michael:
avatar
By Mr_awol
19th Aug 2020 14:23

bernard michael wrote:

My client has recently purchased a Volkswagen van and has been converting it into a double cab by fitting side windows. I claimed AIA in last years CT return when it was a van and have capitalised the conversion costs . Now it is a "double cab "pick-up. Client claims it adds value to the van/whatever. I don't believe him
Weird situation ??

Is it a double cab pickup?

If it was a van, and is now a van with side windows I'd say no.

Even if it was a van, and now has side windows and seats in the back, it still wont be a pick-up - even if it no longer qualifies as a van.

Pickups are an entirely different type of vehicle

Thanks (1)
Replying to bernard michael:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
20th Aug 2020 10:06

bernard michael wrote:

Weird situation ??

Can't be that weird - isn't it pretty much what happened in the Coca-Cola case? (Confession: as it's of zero current relevance to me, I've not read it; but based on what's been said about it in here...)

Are the changes indicative of a change of use, or more private use? Have you considered whether allowances are available for the capitalised conversion costs?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cbp99
19th Aug 2020 11:25

Thanks for all contributions.

On further reflection, it seems to me there are two ways of imagining HMRC's thinking.

1. They took the view that the Coca-Cola vehicles were outwith the double cab pick-up definition, and therefore did not qualify for the exception in S115, hence the court case.
2. They came to a revised interpretation of S115, and no longer recognised double cab pick-ups with a payload of 1 tonne as generally falling within the exception.

But if 2 is the case, one would suppose that even an organisation as incompetent and witless as HMRC would have revised its manuals accordingly, and told its staff of the new interpretation of the law.

Thanks (0)
Replying to cbp99:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
19th Aug 2020 13:38

My opinion
Coca Cola got what what they deseved

Double cab pickup with crud in covered load area, still a van

Thanks (1)
Replying to cbp99:
avatar
By Mr_awol
19th Aug 2020 14:25

cbp99 wrote:

Thanks for all contributions.

On further reflection, it seems to me there are two ways of imagining HMRC's thinking.

1. They took the view that the Coca-Cola vehicles were outwith the double cab pick-up definition, and therefore did not qualify for the exception in S115, hence the court case.
2. They came to a revised interpretation of S115, and no longer recognised double cab pick-ups with a payload of 1 tonne as generally falling within the exception.

But if 2 is the case, one would suppose that even an organisation as incompetent and witless as HMRC would have revised its manuals accordingly, and told its staff of the new interpretation of the law.

It is kind of option one. I say kind of because these Coca Cola vehicles were not, never were, and were never argued to be, pick ups. Completely different vehicle.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Mr_awol
19th Aug 2020 15:10

This thread is making my brain hurt. Pickup (as a word) seems to be thrown in throughout the thread any time 'double cab' is mentioned, and in many cases it probably isn't relevant.The OP started it, and several others have joined in. To clarify:

Double Cab Pickups have two rows of seats, and a big flat uncovered (i.e no roof) area at the back. Think Nissan Navarra, or American rednecks. Yee Haw.

Double cab vans (or crew cab vans) are a big box, like a transit, with a front driver/passenger bit and a rear area that may or may not be separated by a bulkhead. The have a big sliding door on the side and may have side windows. Some (like the Coca Cola ones) are designed so that you can very easily put extra rows of seats (or individual seats) in and make them very much like minibuses. There's even a picture of one in the article linked by the OP.

So minibuses pretending to be vans aren't really vans after all, even if all the seats are taken out (or not installed). That's not a great shock TBH.

As for whether this decisions affects ACTUAL pickups, I don't think it does right now and suspect it wont long term, unless HMRC try and completely withdraw their interpretation. The HMRC guidance/interpretation of twin cab pickups at EIM23150 (including the 1 tonne rule) ONLY applies to YeeHaw pickups. It does not apply to a Transity minibus. EIM23150 even says the 1 tonne test does not apply to other vehicles. EIM23110 on the other hand deals with the basic car or van rule for everything that ISNT covered by EIM23150

Thanks (2)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
19th Aug 2020 15:16

Warrior is the name on the pick up for the only client relevant to me, Rear has a cover so that tools are not an open buffet

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Mr_awol
19th Aug 2020 16:47

Paul Crowley wrote:

Warrior is the name on the pick up for the only client relevant to me, Rear has a cover so that tools are not an open buffet

Yes but it's still an open flatbed with a bit of plastic over it. Completely different to a properly enclosed vivaro, T5, transit, or anything else.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
19th Aug 2020 15:27

Merseyside Mike's closing comment here https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/vw-combi-vans may act as a painkiller.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Mr_awol
19th Aug 2020 16:49

Tax Dragon wrote:

Merseyside Mike's closing comment here https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/any-answers/vw-combi-vans may act as a painkiller.

I'm more than happy with the classifications (although that is an interesting comment) and was loosely aware that cc's modifications had caused the problem.

My issue is the number of people in the thread seemingly confusing the two types if vehicle.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
19th Aug 2020 16:54

Not just here but every article discussing this issue

Thanks (1)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
19th Aug 2020 16:57

Yeah you said. Just thought it would ease the stress to read something less... erm... stress-inducing.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By cbp99
19th Aug 2020 16:03

Re terminology, I specifically used the wording in HMRC's Employment and CA manuals "double cab pick-ups".

For what it is worth, I have come to the strong view that such vehicles, as described in EIM23150 and CA23510, are correctly treated as vans for BIK and CA purposes.

Thanks (0)
Replying to cbp99:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
19th Aug 2020 16:22

Same here
BUT warned client just in case
The warrior is only BIK van that is chosen to be reported

I really really look to avoid p11ds.

Gym goes to directors loan. Dividend tax better than Ernic

Thanks (0)
Replying to cbp99:
avatar
By Mr_awol
19th Aug 2020 16:56

cbp99 wrote:

Re terminology, I specifically used the wording in HMRC's Employment and CA manuals "double cab pick-ups".

For what it is worth, I have come to the strong view that such vehicles, as described in EIM23150 and CA23510, are correctly treated as vans for BIK and CA purposes.

Yes but you hypothesised that HMRC "took the view that the Coca-Cola vehicles were outwith the double cab pick-up definition". In fact, the Coca-Cola case had absolutely nothing to do with double cab pickups. That type of vehicle is completely different and almost completely irrelevant. The pickups are, and continue to be, vans.

The coca cola case involved double cab* vans (not pickups), which ironically are now cars.

*Also referred to as crew cab vans.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Mr_awol:
avatar
By cbp99
19th Aug 2020 17:58

I was reporting the view of the ATT, which omitted to mention the "double cab pick-up" distinction in EIM23110, which is elaborated in EIM23150, and could therefore be read as applying more generally than (I think we agree) it actually does.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Mr_awol:
ALISK
By atleastisoundknowledgable...
20th Aug 2020 10:17

Love your ‘for pick-up, visualise redneck / yeehaw’.
Can I add ‘for van, visualise a plumber’?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bernard michael
19th Aug 2020 15:29

The description on my client's invoice says VW Transporter Highline Van.
Vorsprung Durch Technick
If they say it's a van it's not a duck

Thanks (1)
avatar
By unearned luck
20th Aug 2020 00:58

An Act of Parliament is meant to be workable. If an employer must ask the Court of Appeal how to classify a certain vehicle on its P11ds then something has gone horribly wrong. The CoA spent so much time examining the trees that it failed to notice the wood. The case review in Taxation concludes that the CoA has got this one wrong.

On double cab pick-ups, Wilkins Micawber might have said, after reading HMRC’s guidance: payload no tons, 19 and 6 stone result: misery. Payload one ton, nought and 6 stone result: happiness (he would have used the avoirdupois system).

But this watershed between car and van is untenable in view of the CoA’s view of the meaning of ‘primary’. Double cab pick-ups are designed to carry both people and goods, the carrying of goods does not predominate to the degree necessary for it to be the primary purpose (such vehicles have no primary purpose at all) therefore, these vehicles are by default, a car. It makes not one iota of difference if the payload exceeds a tonne or not. That is not the test. This is the CoA’s view applied to double cab pick-ups.

In the case of crew cab vehicles, it is the second row of seats and additional windows that sink any claim that they are vans for BIK purposes. The carrying of passengers is a major purpose of the vehicles’ design. Even if the carrying of goods remains the main purpose, it robs that main purpose of the primacy needed for the vehicles to be vans. But many vans (in the everyday meaning of that word) can carry two passengers in the front row as well as the driver. Are such vans also cars for BIK purposes, because they have no primary purpose? This is why the CoA’s decision is so bad, it offers no guidance on where the dividing line is between cars and vans other than saying that being marginally more suitable for conveying goods is not it and that a vehicle must be ‘first and foremost’ for conveying goods for it to be van. So how many human beings can a vehicle be designed to carry for it to cease to meet that test?

Thanks (0)
Replying to unearned luck:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
20th Aug 2020 09:51

Tax law is always playing catch-up with the way things are. So inevitably the courts have the first stab as they try to apply existing law to new situations.

Cars and vans will probably be obsolescent before we know all the answers. Happily, the grey areas between capital and revenue (and others such as structures/buildings) will live on.

Thanks (0)
Replying to unearned luck:
avatar
By Mr_awol
20th Aug 2020 10:05

It's a good point, but I can follow a certain login in HMRC deciding that pickups do have a 'primary' purpose of load bearing - as long as they have sufficient area and might to carry a reasonable payload. That threshold had to be quantified somehow, and weight would generally be the most sensible option.

Massively oversimplifying things for a second, and bringing in my six year old's drawing skills:

If you were drawing (or indeed designing) a car, you'd draw a box on wheels with windows and seats. Maybe an exhaust pipe with smoke coming out the back and some smiling occupants. You might make it bigger, smaller, more or less doors, maybe take out the second row and just have two seats - but the key area of focus would be the windows and the seats.

If you were designing a van, you'd draw a bigger box on wheels with a couple of windows at the front, probably a bulkhead to separate the cab, and a big empty space at the back for putting 'stuff' in. Again, you can have a big or a little van, but you'd always have a big box at the back and you'd generally draw it almost separately.

If you were designing a pickup truck, you'd draw a medium sized box on wheels with a big empty flat bit at the rear for putting 'stuff' and you'd then add the front windows, seats, and happy smiling occupants. You might put in an extra row of seats, but you'd never reduce the load area by 50% to accommodate that - because it's not a car, its a pickup, and the big empty bit at the back is the important bit.

Crew cabs, come to think of it, would be drawn largely like cars - and then the seats would be removed to make it easier to carry 'stuff' as well. The starting point, however, is a minibus. As such the decision is probably fair.

Thanks (0)
John Stokdyk, AccountingWEB head of insight
By John Stokdyk
20th Aug 2020 16:48

This really is Automotive August on AccountingWEB. This has been a lively thread, but I would also direct you to the article Helen Thornley published on AccountingWEB nearly two weeks ago: https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/business-tax/multi-purpose-vehicles-...

Most of the members who commented there concurred that the court had probably made the correct interpretation of the law, and some anxiety was expressed about the court's definition extending to double-cab pick-ups. However, most felt the risks of older treatments getting picked up were low, as the clients could use prevailing practice as a defence.

Just to whet your appetite, we're about to publish a follow up article, in which Helen will consider the implications for AIA claims, VAT and the potential fall out for those double-cab pick-ups: follow this link for more...
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/business-tax/rocky-road-ahead-for-va...

Thanks (2)
Replying to John Stokdyk:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
20th Aug 2020 17:24

Coca cola was not about pickups
Who is suggesting that the coke Case extends to pickups?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
20th Aug 2020 17:34

The OP?

Anyway, I suspect Bernard is looking forward to the new article.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
20th Aug 2020 18:19

I think OP is suggesting that nothing has changed, But pointing out Helen's article.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
20th Aug 2020 20:46

Well read. In which case, the answer to the OP's question ("any thoughts?") is "I agree." Or even "we agree."

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By John Isabel
21st Aug 2020 11:33

Paul Crowley wrote:

Coca cola was not about pickups
Who is suggesting that the coke Case extends to pickups?

To OP put as their sub-heading:
"Recent Coca-Cola case suggests double cab pick-ups are now to be treated as cars - right or wrong?"

Thanks (0)
Replying to John Stokdyk:
avatar
By unearned luck
21st Aug 2020 00:22

FYI, the OP linked Helen's article in his question.

Thanks (0)
Replying to unearned luck:
John Stokdyk, AccountingWEB head of insight
By John Stokdyk
21st Aug 2020 14:09

D'oh! I'm sorry, I saw the reference to ATT in the link and assumed it was to something on their site, forgetting that our contributor Helen Thornley is an ATT officer.

Forgive the oversight and for not reading the OP carefully enough. The crew-cab van/double-cab pickup definitions for different tax purposes are confusing as it is - I feel like I'm beginning to fall deeper and deeper into a hall of mirrors.

@PaulC - just to clarify, both the OP here and people commenting on Helen's original article were concerned that the appeal court decision on crew cab vans could influence the definitions and tax treatments of double-cab pickups. The final section of her new article is devoted to that point.

Thanks (1)
John Hextall
By John Hextall
21st Aug 2020 11:05

I think the Coca-Cola judgement will not stand for very long. Throughout the building industry, hi-top long wheel base transits that have been fitted with extra seats (and often a dining table) are used for small teams working in remote places - servicing wind turbines or repairing railways for instance. They carry some tools and equipment in the back and use the vehicle as a canteen/shelter etc. in wet weather. Often, they are the responsibility of the team leader who is expected to take them home and allowed private use (when not at work). These would now seem to be defined as cars, which is clearly ridiculous.

Thanks (0)
Replying to John Hextall:
By Nick Graves
21st Aug 2020 11:39

Those tend to be Class 7 vans - 3-3.5 tonners. Think Sprinter. Common as roadie crew-buses, too.

M-B also offer the Class 4 Vito - or V-Class when it's pretending to be a car. Or both cars, according to HMRC and not the DVLA...there is a taxi version, too...

The corollary of HMRC's latest nit-picking will be powerfully-built company directors rattling around in Sprinters with seats.

I cannot see this ending well.

Thanks (0)
Replying to John Hextall:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
21st Aug 2020 11:43

I think the judgement was correct on the facts of the Coca cola case
EVERY VEHICLE was non standard.

The problem is commentators suggesting that standard vehicles are caught up in this.

Complete nonsence

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
22nd Aug 2020 18:14

1 Double cab pick-ups - car or van?
2 Recent Coca-Cola case suggests double cab pick-ups are now to be treated as cars - right or wrong?

1 van
2 wrong

Per Helen's new article

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/business-tax/rocky-road-ahead-for-va...

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By unearned luck
23rd Aug 2020 10:21

You’re still missing the point, Paul.

For a motor vehicle to be a van for BIK purposes it must, among other things, be primarily constructed to convey goods or burden.

The CoA have construed ‘primarily’ to mean first and foremost. The fact that in doing so they had “non-standard” vehicles in mind makes no difference. The new construction of ‘primarily’ must be applied to all putative vans including “standard vehicles”.

The question is: has the vehicle been constructed:
a) Primarily to convey goods or burden
b) Primarily for some other purpose (eg to carry passengers), or
c) To have no primary purpose at all (eg to carry goods and more than one or two passengers)?

Only a) makes a vehicle a van for BIK purposes.

Take two double cab pickups one with a payload of 0.99 tonnes and the other with a payload 1.01 tonnes. Using the CoA’s interpretation, how can two very similar vehicles have different classifications for BIK purposes? If the one is ‘first and foremost’ constructed to carry goods then so must be the other, or more probably, both are in category c). The CoA explicitly ruled that a vehicle that is marginally more suited to convey goods does not pass the first and foremost meaning of primarily.

HMRC have not yet resiled from the payload test but they must surely do so. I don’t know what they will put in its place. The CoA did not suggest in practice where the new line should be drawn, but it seems that carrying passengers must almost be an afterthought of the designer. I doubt that any vehicle with a double row of seats will pass. Some people have suggested there should be a new class of benefit with the taxable amount somewhere between car and van.

Helen’s new article does not gainsay any of this.

Thanks (0)
Replying to unearned luck:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
23rd Aug 2020 18:58

Extract from article
'Double cab pick-up

If this payload quirk feels familiar for vehicles with additional seating, then you might be thinking of the special concession for double cab pick-ups. Like a crew-cab vehicle, these have seats behind the driver but, instead of an enclosed load space behind, there is a flatbed bay. Also unlike the position for crew-cab vehicles, specific HMRC guidance on these vehicles has been around for some time.

Since 2002/03, HMRC has accepted that if a double cab pick-up (but no other type of dual purpose vehicle) meets the payload test to be classed as a van for VAT purposes, then HMRC will apply the same treatment for benefit in kind purposes as well – despite the different definition in law.

The business needs to take care that modifications (eg putting a cover over the load area at the back) don’t reduce the payload capacity by increasing weight of the pick-up. Otherwise the treatment set out by HMRC is clear, and in 2015 it even went as far as providing a list of vehicles showing whether each would be car or van for input tax purposes. Sadly, this list has not been updated since.'

Very clear in employment manual
Picks-up are vans subject to payload.
HMRC have had lots of time to change their opinion. They appear not to had done so.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
24th Aug 2020 09:49

Paul Crowley wrote:

HMRC have had lots of time to change their opinion. They appear not to had done so.

I read Unearned's point as being that the Court has now (in effect) told HMRC its published opinion is incorrect. HMRC has not had "lots of time" since being told it was wrong to come up with something right.

If HMRC is happy to continue to treat pickups as vans, expect a fudge to that effect (and no-one will argue). If HMRC (or its masters) has had enough of people using pickups as company cars, and sees this as an opportunity to backtrack on its stated position, then it'll get juicier as people will disagree and another court case may arise.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By gillybean04
24th Aug 2020 14:04

EIM23150 says that they have deemed double cab pickups as vans as despite "on the surface" being equally suited to both purposes, upon reviewing various factors relating to the construction of the vehicle some of them are predominantly suited for goods or burden.

The CA have just said that being marginally or narrowly more suited for goods after a mechanical or mathematical exercise is not primarily suited and multipurpose vehicles may not have a primary purpose.

HMRC's classification of double cab pickups as a van seems to have been on a narrow balance, after some mechanical or mathemtical exercise.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By RogerMT
25th Aug 2020 10:10

In my opinion, HMRC will have a hard time persuading the courts that double cab pick ups are cars, and may even be forced to re-classify those combis caught under the Coca-Cola case, if it goes higher up the legal chain. Put very simply, if these vehicles are "cars" then why aren't our streets full of them? No-one, or at least very few who drive for leisure purposes want to drive these big ugly duty-expensive fuel guzzlers by choice. There is almost always a commercial purpose for driving these vehicles.

Thanks (0)
Replying to RogerMT:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
25th Aug 2020 10:53

I agree
All luggage for passengers is outside the vehicle
Not so with vans and people carriers

HMRC had the opportunity, when challenging Coca cola at the start to rewrite the Pick-up exception.
How long ago was that?
HMRC do not usually take account of obiter dicta unless it agrees with their opinion.

My one client with one of these needs to carry materials. That is what a pick-up does.
He has an old one, and I doubt anyone has ever said 'nice car'

Thanks (1)

Pages