One of the boats I would be interested in seems to be much more popular and available on the used market in the USA. Has anyone (Canadian) bought a US boat and brought it across the border? If so, what fees are due re duty, taxes etc., and what kind of paperwork was required?
Canadian sailors buying american boats
- Thread starter Roger1250
- Start date
- Status
Crossing the Border
I brought my boat back from the I brought my boat back from the U.S. a number of years ago. The first thing is that there is no duty anymore if the boat was built in North America...( Catalina or Hunter for ex.) You will have to pay G.S.T. and P.S.T. I had a customs broker do the paper work.
I brought my boat back from the I brought my boat back from the U.S. a number of years ago. The first thing is that there is no duty anymore if the boat was built in North America...( Catalina or Hunter for ex.) You will have to pay G.S.T. and P.S.T. I had a customs broker do the paper work.
Importing a used boat into Canada
We brought our H34 into Canada two years ago. My wife developed a great deal of expertice in a very short time on this whole area- You will need to pay both GST and PST on the value crossing the border. There are considerations with making sure you have clear title. The USD makes this attractive these days as typically the larger supply of bpoats in US makes the price less. Drop me an email- you can find me in the owners directory and I will get my wife to put together a check list. regards
We brought our H34 into Canada two years ago. My wife developed a great deal of expertice in a very short time on this whole area- You will need to pay both GST and PST on the value crossing the border. There are considerations with making sure you have clear title. The USD makes this attractive these days as typically the larger supply of bpoats in US makes the price less. Drop me an email- you can find me in the owners directory and I will get my wife to put together a check list. regards
Get your brother-in-law to do it
You likely have a relative that lives in Alberta (THE ONLY PST-FREE ZONE IN CANADA)most Manitobans do. So I suggest you get them to buy the boat and import it across the border into Alberta tax free and then sell it to you some tim later. You won't save the GST but saving 7% or 8% of $30 grand always helps.
You likely have a relative that lives in Alberta (THE ONLY PST-FREE ZONE IN CANADA)most Manitobans do. So I suggest you get them to buy the boat and import it across the border into Alberta tax free and then sell it to you some tim later. You won't save the GST but saving 7% or 8% of $30 grand always helps.
It's easy .
I bought my Hunter34 in Seattle WA and just sail it back to Vancouver, find a marine with custome office, call them from marina upon arrival and customer officer came to the boat. Paid all tax by credit card on spot and all done in half an hour. No appointment necessary. It juat like buying anything in a store except custom will come to your boat to collect the tax. Sure you need all sales documents in order when close the deal.
I bought my Hunter34 in Seattle WA and just sail it back to Vancouver, find a marine with custome office, call them from marina upon arrival and customer officer came to the boat. Paid all tax by credit card on spot and all done in half an hour. No appointment necessary. It juat like buying anything in a store except custom will come to your boat to collect the tax. Sure you need all sales documents in order when close the deal.
PST - re: Richard's comments
It's true that if you leave the boat in Alberta then you won't pay PST, but if you move it to any other province you will be liable for pst in that province. Whether or not you declare it is another issue. But I can tell you that here in BC, every couple of years the PST guys end up finding a lot of owners who brought in boats but didn't pay the PST. Let me tell you that they owe a lot in interest & penalties once they find you. You decide whether it's worth the risk or not. Peter
It's true that if you leave the boat in Alberta then you won't pay PST, but if you move it to any other province you will be liable for pst in that province. Whether or not you declare it is another issue. But I can tell you that here in BC, every couple of years the PST guys end up finding a lot of owners who brought in boats but didn't pay the PST. Let me tell you that they owe a lot in interest & penalties once they find you. You decide whether it's worth the risk or not. Peter
If it's a trailerable
I've been considering going down myself. There are some attractive buys. I called Canada Customs and they told me I would need two receipts, for a trailerable boat[which is what I'm into
]. One for the boat, and one for the trailer. I can't remember which, but one of the items is not taxed PST, they told me. Also, you need the title from the state inwhich the boat is registered, to transfer over to CDN registration[free of charge]. If there are plates on the trailer, they take them off, and you drive home with an unplated trailer. I asked about getting stopped by the police, and the customs officer told me the paperwork from customs will be good enough to show the police, as proof of ownership, while the boat/trailer is in transit.
I've been considering going down myself. There are some attractive buys. I called Canada Customs and they told me I would need two receipts, for a trailerable boat[which is what I'm into
]. One for the boat, and one for the trailer. I can't remember which, but one of the items is not taxed PST, they told me. Also, you need the title from the state inwhich the boat is registered, to transfer over to CDN registration[free of charge]. If there are plates on the trailer, they take them off, and you drive home with an unplated trailer. I asked about getting stopped by the police, and the customs officer told me the paperwork from customs will be good enough to show the police, as proof of ownership, while the boat/trailer is in transit.
Barrie - re trailer plates
Barroe - re towing the boat and trailer home without plates on the trailer. While that might be the "legal" way to do it, towing a trailer without plates would really increase the odds of being pulled over by the highway patrol. To lessen the chances of being stopped, maybe one should keep the plates on, say, until being within sight of the border and then take them off. Personally, I HATE being pulled over, for any reason, and giving someone a legal opportunity just increases the odds of that happening. Don't know what the "crime" would be to leaving the plates on but it couldn't be much. Speaking of trailerable boats, come to think of it, there doesn't seem to be many trailerable sailboats made in Can ada. On the other hand, there are a number of larger non-trailerable boats made there. That's interesting. Good luck with your boat hunting!
Barroe - re towing the boat and trailer home without plates on the trailer. While that might be the "legal" way to do it, towing a trailer without plates would really increase the odds of being pulled over by the highway patrol. To lessen the chances of being stopped, maybe one should keep the plates on, say, until being within sight of the border and then take them off. Personally, I HATE being pulled over, for any reason, and giving someone a legal opportunity just increases the odds of that happening. Don't know what the "crime" would be to leaving the plates on but it couldn't be much. Speaking of trailerable boats, come to think of it, there doesn't seem to be many trailerable sailboats made in Can ada. On the other hand, there are a number of larger non-trailerable boats made there. That's interesting. Good luck with your boat hunting!
I was thinking along those lines
I was thinking I might take my existing trailer plate with me and attach at the border! That could prove to be a worse problem if caught, than having nothing at all. I agree though, I don't like to give the cops any reason to pull me over! Re CDN trailerables, I don't think there is anyone manufacturing trailerables here anymore! Gozzard, Saga, PDQ, still haven't seen the great potential to be had in this market;D
I was thinking I might take my existing trailer plate with me and attach at the border! That could prove to be a worse problem if caught, than having nothing at all. I agree though, I don't like to give the cops any reason to pull me over! Re CDN trailerables, I don't think there is anyone manufacturing trailerables here anymore! Gozzard, Saga, PDQ, still haven't seen the great potential to be had in this market;D
Request for Richard Bryer
Richard, Can't find your listing anywhere in the directory, and I have numerous questions regarding buying a US boat. Can you please provide another contact? Many thanks...John
Richard, Can't find your listing anywhere in the directory, and I have numerous questions regarding buying a US boat. Can you please provide another contact? Many thanks...John
thanks all, for your replies
The boat of interest is the Mariner, which seems to be popular in the New York, New Jersey area. It would be a long drive to Alberta to save the 7% then perhaps to fess up when I do get it to Manitoba. I think the better bet is to find it as close as possible to the north central plains. (I heard of one in South Dakota, and another in Michigan, and rumor of an old fleet once in Chicago) I could then go down and get it and trailer it across, paperwork in hand. Two receipts; no plates heh? humm! In Manitoba the plates constitute insurance on the trailer in case of accident. No plate; no policy; no coverage. I would be better to get proof of ownership faxed to me prior to going down, buying insurance and getting the licence plate here, taking it down there, putting it on the trailer, (take it off at the border) then put it back on for continued coverage, and keeping the RCMP at bay! I would sure want insurance on both the boat and trailer for the trip. Good to hear that there is no duty, so that sure makes it attractive. I've seen some prices as low as $1500 USD, with the exchange at todays rates and the taxes that puts it at an affordable 2000 and change. That's what my current boat would sell for on a good late spring day!
The boat of interest is the Mariner, which seems to be popular in the New York, New Jersey area. It would be a long drive to Alberta to save the 7% then perhaps to fess up when I do get it to Manitoba. I think the better bet is to find it as close as possible to the north central plains. (I heard of one in South Dakota, and another in Michigan, and rumor of an old fleet once in Chicago) I could then go down and get it and trailer it across, paperwork in hand. Two receipts; no plates heh? humm! In Manitoba the plates constitute insurance on the trailer in case of accident. No plate; no policy; no coverage. I would be better to get proof of ownership faxed to me prior to going down, buying insurance and getting the licence plate here, taking it down there, putting it on the trailer, (take it off at the border) then put it back on for continued coverage, and keeping the RCMP at bay! I would sure want insurance on both the boat and trailer for the trip. Good to hear that there is no duty, so that sure makes it attractive. I've seen some prices as low as $1500 USD, with the exchange at todays rates and the taxes that puts it at an affordable 2000 and change. That's what my current boat would sell for on a good late spring day!
I am there
I am there, John ( Humper) do search on my last name inthe owners directory. That should bring up an email reply screen.
I am there, John ( Humper) do search on my last name inthe owners directory. That should bring up an email reply screen.
Eric, regarding that PST
The MOT folks will collect the trailer PST when you go to get plates for it. That's why it is common practice in Ont. and Que. to have separate receipts for the boat and the trailer. That keeps the plating transaction simple and straight forward, and avoids having some little civil servant trying to collect the PST on the boat. Kevin
The MOT folks will collect the trailer PST when you go to get plates for it. That's why it is common practice in Ont. and Que. to have separate receipts for the boat and the trailer. That keeps the plating transaction simple and straight forward, and avoids having some little civil servant trying to collect the PST on the boat. Kevin
100% Surtax ?
From “Soundings - Trade Only Today (11/26/2004) Canada threatens 100-percent boat surtax The National Marine Manufacturers Association says urgent action is needed to stop a 100-percent surtax from being imposed on American-made recreational boats imported into Canada. The surtax would apply to imported products from the United States, including pleasure vessels such as yachts, sailboats, powerboats, inflatables and canoes. NMMA is asking its members to contact their dealers in Canada and urge them to register their opposition. “This surtax would be devastating to U.S. boat manufacturers that export vessels to Canada,” said NMMA president Thom Dammrich in a statement. “It would double the price of all American boats sold over the border, eliminating our competitiveness in the Canadian market.” The Canadian government Tuesday announced that it might impose the surtax in retaliation for the Byrd Amendment, a law that allows duties collected from antidumping and countervailing to be given to U.S. firms that petition for tax relief. Canada said it intends to levy tariffs on many other imported U.S. goods in addition to boats. The Byrd Amendment, named for U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., was challenged by a number of countries in the World Trade Organization. The WTO has ruled that the amendment violates trade agreements, and that member countries can retaliate against the United States. Canada has said it favors repeal of the Byrd Amendment over the imposition of tariffs, but until that happens, government officials there said they must explore the retaliatory measures allowed by the WTO. The WTO found in January 2003 that the Byrd Amendment was inconsistent with its rules and gave the United States until December of that year to come into compliance. When Congress failed to act by January of this year, WTO members began to file for permission to retaliate. “NMMA will be aggressively pursuing a repeal of the Byrd Amendment in the 109th Congress, and will be meeting with key congressional staff next week,” said Monita Fontaine, NMMA vice president of government relations, in a statement. “The amendment must be repealed immediately in order to prevent not only Canada but other WTO countries from seeking to impose tariffs on the boating industry.” The Canadian government is soliciting comments on the proposed tariffs until Dec. 20. Visit NMMA @: www.nmma.org/government/issueadvoca...x.asp?catid=234 Backgrounder: On October 28, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the "Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001". The "Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000" (Byrd Amendment) was part of that Act. Under the Byrd Amendment (which amended the Tariff Act of 1930, the principal U.S. trade remedy statute), anti-dumping and countervailing duties are given to U.S. producers who supported those trade remedy actions. These duties were previously deposited in the U.S. Treasury. This means that U.S. companies that bring trade remedy cases to U.S. authorities stand to benefit not only from the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on competing imports, but also from direct payments from the U.S. government when those duties are disbursed. In September 2001, eleven WTO Members, including Canada, challenged the Byrd Amendment at the WTO. The ten other co-complainants are: the European Union, Australia, Brazil, Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Korea, and Thailand. In September 2002, the WTO Panel determined that these payments are not consistent with U.S. obligations under WTO Agreements governing Anti-Dumping and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The Panel determined that the payments constitute an additional measure against injurious dumping and subsidization not contemplated in either agreement. The case was then appealed by the U.S. and in January 2003, a WTO Appellate Body report, upholding the key panel findings against the Byrd Amendment, was adopted by the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). A WTO Arbitrator subsequently gave the U.S. 11 months (until December 27, 2003) to bring its measure into compliance. The U.S. failed to meet this deadline. WTO rules require that, in the event of non-compliance by a member following dispute settlement procedures, complainants seeking to preserve their retaliation rights, must seek retaliation authorization from the DSB within thirty days of the implementation deadline -- in this case, by January 26, 2004. Accordingly, at a special meeting on January 26, 2004, the DSB considered the requests for retaliation authorization made by Canada and the European Union, Brazil, Chile, India, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea. Canada requested that the level of retaliation be linked to the dollar amount disbursed under the Byrd Amendment to would ensure that Canada’s retaliation rights would be protected in the event of any large future disbursements. Canada proposed as possible retaliatory options, a surtax on imports from the U.S. and the suspension of the injury test in Canadian anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations involving imports from the U.S.. Under WTO rules, anti-dumping and countervailing duties may only be imposed if dumped or subsidised imports are causing or threatening to cause injury to domestic producers. Canada’s request proposed the suspension of that requirement on imports from the U.S. as a possible option for retaliation. The U.S. objected to all the complainants’ requests and the determination of the level of retaliation was referred to arbitration. On March 2, 2004, the non-partisan U.S. Congressional Budget released a report which condemned the Byrd Amendment on several grounds. The report highlights that trade retaliation was among the consequences if the Byrd Amendment was not repealed. The Report also states that the Byrd Amendment encourages trade remedy cases, subsidizes the outputs of some firms at the expense of others and discourages settlement of cases by U.S. firms that brought those trade remedy actions. The report can be found here. On August 31, 2004, the WTO Arbitrator ruled that Canada could retaliate against the United States up to 72% of the annual level of U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected on Canadian goods disbursed to U.S. producers under the Byrd Amendment. This level is based on an economic model developed by the WTO to measure the trade effect of the Byrd Amendment on U.S. trading partners. This level was also provided to the seven other WTO Members involved in the arbitration (Brazil, Chile, European Union, India, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea). On November 10, 2004, Canada joined the Brazil, the European Union, India, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea in submitting its final retaliation authorization request, reflecting the WTO Arbitrator’s decision. That request will be considered at the November 24th meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body. It will be automatically be accepted unless all Members, including Canada, rejects the request. According to U.S. Customs, Byrd disbursements to U.S. producers amounted to US$ 231 million in 2001, US$ 330 million in 2002, and US$ 240 million in 2003. Disbursements linked directly to duties paid on Canadian goods amounted to US$ 5.2 million in 2001, US$ 2.5 million in 2002, and US$ 9.5 million for 2003. Estimated 2004 disbursements linked to duties paid on Canadian goods is approximately US$ 14 million. Canadian softwood lumber producers have paid over US$3 billion in cash deposits to date. Small amounts of softwood lumber duties for which no administrative review was requested were disbursed in 2003. Approximately US$ 1 billion could begin to be disbursed annually starting in late 2007. This is due to the ongoing process of administrative reviews and NAFTA litigation. __________________
From “Soundings - Trade Only Today (11/26/2004) Canada threatens 100-percent boat surtax The National Marine Manufacturers Association says urgent action is needed to stop a 100-percent surtax from being imposed on American-made recreational boats imported into Canada. The surtax would apply to imported products from the United States, including pleasure vessels such as yachts, sailboats, powerboats, inflatables and canoes. NMMA is asking its members to contact their dealers in Canada and urge them to register their opposition. “This surtax would be devastating to U.S. boat manufacturers that export vessels to Canada,” said NMMA president Thom Dammrich in a statement. “It would double the price of all American boats sold over the border, eliminating our competitiveness in the Canadian market.” The Canadian government Tuesday announced that it might impose the surtax in retaliation for the Byrd Amendment, a law that allows duties collected from antidumping and countervailing to be given to U.S. firms that petition for tax relief. Canada said it intends to levy tariffs on many other imported U.S. goods in addition to boats. The Byrd Amendment, named for U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., was challenged by a number of countries in the World Trade Organization. The WTO has ruled that the amendment violates trade agreements, and that member countries can retaliate against the United States. Canada has said it favors repeal of the Byrd Amendment over the imposition of tariffs, but until that happens, government officials there said they must explore the retaliatory measures allowed by the WTO. The WTO found in January 2003 that the Byrd Amendment was inconsistent with its rules and gave the United States until December of that year to come into compliance. When Congress failed to act by January of this year, WTO members began to file for permission to retaliate. “NMMA will be aggressively pursuing a repeal of the Byrd Amendment in the 109th Congress, and will be meeting with key congressional staff next week,” said Monita Fontaine, NMMA vice president of government relations, in a statement. “The amendment must be repealed immediately in order to prevent not only Canada but other WTO countries from seeking to impose tariffs on the boating industry.” The Canadian government is soliciting comments on the proposed tariffs until Dec. 20. Visit NMMA @: www.nmma.org/government/issueadvoca...x.asp?catid=234 Backgrounder: On October 28, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed the "Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001". The "Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000" (Byrd Amendment) was part of that Act. Under the Byrd Amendment (which amended the Tariff Act of 1930, the principal U.S. trade remedy statute), anti-dumping and countervailing duties are given to U.S. producers who supported those trade remedy actions. These duties were previously deposited in the U.S. Treasury. This means that U.S. companies that bring trade remedy cases to U.S. authorities stand to benefit not only from the imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on competing imports, but also from direct payments from the U.S. government when those duties are disbursed. In September 2001, eleven WTO Members, including Canada, challenged the Byrd Amendment at the WTO. The ten other co-complainants are: the European Union, Australia, Brazil, Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Korea, and Thailand. In September 2002, the WTO Panel determined that these payments are not consistent with U.S. obligations under WTO Agreements governing Anti-Dumping and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The Panel determined that the payments constitute an additional measure against injurious dumping and subsidization not contemplated in either agreement. The case was then appealed by the U.S. and in January 2003, a WTO Appellate Body report, upholding the key panel findings against the Byrd Amendment, was adopted by the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). A WTO Arbitrator subsequently gave the U.S. 11 months (until December 27, 2003) to bring its measure into compliance. The U.S. failed to meet this deadline. WTO rules require that, in the event of non-compliance by a member following dispute settlement procedures, complainants seeking to preserve their retaliation rights, must seek retaliation authorization from the DSB within thirty days of the implementation deadline -- in this case, by January 26, 2004. Accordingly, at a special meeting on January 26, 2004, the DSB considered the requests for retaliation authorization made by Canada and the European Union, Brazil, Chile, India, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea. Canada requested that the level of retaliation be linked to the dollar amount disbursed under the Byrd Amendment to would ensure that Canada’s retaliation rights would be protected in the event of any large future disbursements. Canada proposed as possible retaliatory options, a surtax on imports from the U.S. and the suspension of the injury test in Canadian anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations involving imports from the U.S.. Under WTO rules, anti-dumping and countervailing duties may only be imposed if dumped or subsidised imports are causing or threatening to cause injury to domestic producers. Canada’s request proposed the suspension of that requirement on imports from the U.S. as a possible option for retaliation. The U.S. objected to all the complainants’ requests and the determination of the level of retaliation was referred to arbitration. On March 2, 2004, the non-partisan U.S. Congressional Budget released a report which condemned the Byrd Amendment on several grounds. The report highlights that trade retaliation was among the consequences if the Byrd Amendment was not repealed. The Report also states that the Byrd Amendment encourages trade remedy cases, subsidizes the outputs of some firms at the expense of others and discourages settlement of cases by U.S. firms that brought those trade remedy actions. The report can be found here. On August 31, 2004, the WTO Arbitrator ruled that Canada could retaliate against the United States up to 72% of the annual level of U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected on Canadian goods disbursed to U.S. producers under the Byrd Amendment. This level is based on an economic model developed by the WTO to measure the trade effect of the Byrd Amendment on U.S. trading partners. This level was also provided to the seven other WTO Members involved in the arbitration (Brazil, Chile, European Union, India, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea). On November 10, 2004, Canada joined the Brazil, the European Union, India, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea in submitting its final retaliation authorization request, reflecting the WTO Arbitrator’s decision. That request will be considered at the November 24th meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body. It will be automatically be accepted unless all Members, including Canada, rejects the request. According to U.S. Customs, Byrd disbursements to U.S. producers amounted to US$ 231 million in 2001, US$ 330 million in 2002, and US$ 240 million in 2003. Disbursements linked directly to duties paid on Canadian goods amounted to US$ 5.2 million in 2001, US$ 2.5 million in 2002, and US$ 9.5 million for 2003. Estimated 2004 disbursements linked to duties paid on Canadian goods is approximately US$ 14 million. Canadian softwood lumber producers have paid over US$3 billion in cash deposits to date. Small amounts of softwood lumber duties for which no administrative review was requested were disbursed in 2003. Approximately US$ 1 billion could begin to be disbursed annually starting in late 2007. This is due to the ongoing process of administrative reviews and NAFTA litigation. __________________
Hey Canadians, Do Your Patriotic Duty !!!!
Pay your taxes! Interesting to see how people try do avoid paying their taxes...someone has to pay for that "free" healthcare system.
Pay your taxes! Interesting to see how people try do avoid paying their taxes...someone has to pay for that "free" healthcare system.
Why pay Taxes? Just pi$$ed away
Why would any one in their right mind want to pay more tax than Canadians already pay? We are one of the most heavily taxed nations. If tax money was used to provide legitimate, useful and efficient services - than one wouldn't mind. But spending $1 Billion to register guns (law abiding citizen's guns - not the criminal's guns) and spending $500 million to get Quebec Advertising Agencies to underwrite the cost of the Liberal election - and spending $1 Billion for the Community Development and Employment initiative for which there is no receipts and no outcome - or for the $1 Billion we spent to buy five out-dated submarines from England (who could not give them away and their own Navy would not set to sea inside) - or the $500 million it cost to cancel the Helicoper purchase only to spend $4 Billion to re-instate the purchase contract 5 years later. To say nothing of the $50,000 it cost to lay asphalt up the two miles to our former Prime Minister's summer cottage. Joyfully pay your TAXES - no thanks. It is every Canadian's right and responsibility to pay their legitimate share of the tax burden - But also to exercise every opportunity to keep from having to pay tax.
Why would any one in their right mind want to pay more tax than Canadians already pay? We are one of the most heavily taxed nations. If tax money was used to provide legitimate, useful and efficient services - than one wouldn't mind. But spending $1 Billion to register guns (law abiding citizen's guns - not the criminal's guns) and spending $500 million to get Quebec Advertising Agencies to underwrite the cost of the Liberal election - and spending $1 Billion for the Community Development and Employment initiative for which there is no receipts and no outcome - or for the $1 Billion we spent to buy five out-dated submarines from England (who could not give them away and their own Navy would not set to sea inside) - or the $500 million it cost to cancel the Helicoper purchase only to spend $4 Billion to re-instate the purchase contract 5 years later. To say nothing of the $50,000 it cost to lay asphalt up the two miles to our former Prime Minister's summer cottage. Joyfully pay your TAXES - no thanks. It is every Canadian's right and responsibility to pay their legitimate share of the tax burden - But also to exercise every opportunity to keep from having to pay tax.
Was about time someone called it the way it is..
he in the U.S. all we here about is how happy Canadians are about their utopian system... and that they do not mind the high taxes. abe
he in the U.S. all we here about is how happy Canadians are about their utopian system... and that they do not mind the high taxes. abe
Do any really pay taxes?
Here in New England we find thousands of vessels registered in Canada that never leave the US so Canadian taxes are avoided. Of course, they never paid a dime of taxes here in the US either. Boat Brokers work with Canadians to do delivery "out of their state" to avoid sales tax. None of them are registered here so it works great (for them) Every vessel in the water has an impact on the enviroment. Some of the tax and registration money goes toward enviromental issues, pumpout facilities, boat ramps, trash collection and boat education/training. In my area, many Canadians stop in the marinas after dark, use the rest room, electricity, trash, fill their water tanks and leave before the staff arrives the next morning (have you boat and dingy locked). I've only seem them buy wine, cigarettes and fuel because it's cheaper here than at home. I have many Canadian friends who are wonderful people but very focused and saving a buck and beating the system at our expense. Pay your fair share or take your vessel home. When we buy boats in Canada we have to pay state sales tax to register them here. Perhaps I should write Montreal on the transom of my next boat and join the tax free club.
Here in New England we find thousands of vessels registered in Canada that never leave the US so Canadian taxes are avoided. Of course, they never paid a dime of taxes here in the US either. Boat Brokers work with Canadians to do delivery "out of their state" to avoid sales tax. None of them are registered here so it works great (for them) Every vessel in the water has an impact on the enviroment. Some of the tax and registration money goes toward enviromental issues, pumpout facilities, boat ramps, trash collection and boat education/training. In my area, many Canadians stop in the marinas after dark, use the rest room, electricity, trash, fill their water tanks and leave before the staff arrives the next morning (have you boat and dingy locked). I've only seem them buy wine, cigarettes and fuel because it's cheaper here than at home. I have many Canadian friends who are wonderful people but very focused and saving a buck and beating the system at our expense. Pay your fair share or take your vessel home. When we buy boats in Canada we have to pay state sales tax to register them here. Perhaps I should write Montreal on the transom of my next boat and join the tax free club.
Funny thing, Daryl
We have some US boaters on this side of the lake who do some of the same things. The 80 cent dollar makes things seem cheaper here sometimes. I grew up out west- dont get me on about American hunters!! Guess we have them on both sides of the border.
We have some US boaters on this side of the lake who do some of the same things. The 80 cent dollar makes things seem cheaper here sometimes. I grew up out west- dont get me on about American hunters!! Guess we have them on both sides of the border.
- Status