Big A.D. said:
Some people might use a box of ASEs for that purpose, but what if you're buying them to open the tubes up and search for "perfect" MS70 examples? Plenty of people do that and plenty of people search through their change to look for coins that are worth more in the collectible market than in the every-day market too. Nobody is suggesting spare change should be subject to VAT.
Based on those law texts, those pickpecked "perfect MS70 examples" might, maybe after being graded as a method of 'making it sure', be subjected to the numismatic/collectables lower tax rate. The others of the monsterbox not.
It doesn't have to be harder than this.
And in case some deliberately try to make it harder, causing lengthy law texts with exemptions, as to evade the normal tax rate, one day government may conclude to abandon the lower tax regime on collectibles/art at all.
Then the discussion ends the same time.
Those that
really were in the numismatic/collectibles field, will then 'suffer' the normal tax rate. I'm not sure if they'd appreciate the result of this lower tax rate 'effort'.
Big A.D. said:
And what if inflation is low at the time you purchase them? Inflation in the UK is at about 2.3% at the moment. Clearly you're not purchasing the coins to escape a measly 2.3% inflation rate.
WHAT IF the government in its law texts just takes the absence of the collectibles class recognition parameters?
They could just mention 'inflation' as 1 example. Some here buy these silver coins to make profit. That's even more than inflation hedging, since a hedge is categorized as undoing potential losses.
Big A.D. said:
ASEs are scarce compared to other American coinage. MS70 coins are even scarcer.
Every kind of coin is scarce compared to all the other coins in the world.
Get what I'm doing here? I reference a much bigger 'class'. From ASE to general US coinage and then general world coinage.
1986 5,096,000
1987 9,420,000
1988 5,869,000
1989 6,166,000
1990 7,247,000
1991 6,952,000
1992 5,544,000
1993 5,890,000
1994 5,540,500
1995 4,590,000
1996 3,466,000
1997 3,636,000
1998 4,320,000
1999 9,008,500
2000 9,133,000
2001 8,827,500
2002 10,475,500
2003 9,153,500
2004 9,617,000
2005 8,405,000
2006 10,021,000
2007 9,887,000
2008 19,583,500
2009 28,766,500
2010 34,662,500
2011 39,868,500
2012 33,742,500
2013 23,396,500
Total: 338,284,500
Do you think government will accept a total mintage of 338 million, as a reason to declare ASE's from any year, as relatively scarce?
Then take an individual year. Let's pick the lowest ASE year 3,466,000 in 1996. Scarce enough to declare an ASE from year 1996 as scarce?
Now imagine a YES on that last question.
How many parcels will benefit the lower tax regime? How many ASE 1996 are sold & shipped, relative to the amount other years, especially recent years?
I would say, very little. What will it then matter, and to how many people? Who here will be affected, and in which degree (percent of sales)?
Big A.D. said:
Since the original purpose is protecting wealth, searching for high grade coins would put them outside of that. If they happen to protect wealth as well, then that would be a happy coincidence, just like people who buy a collectible car and discover they can drive down to the local shops in it.
In the oldtimer car example, the original purpose of the car could for ex be just driving 'round (thus a regular car back in the time). According to the law text, if you bought such oldtimer now, and drive around with it, thus the same, it would mean no collectibles tax regime.
So you'd need to park it somewhere, as to make clear that you, guess what, yes correct, 'collect' them haha.
This makes clear that the writer of the law text does all he's able to, to eliminate bogus usage of the 'collectibles' property, for the obvious reason. Imagine the collectibles tax regime had instead been higher than the normal. Suddenly noone would be numismatic anymore haha.
So how far you think they go with your 'happy coincidence' explanation?
Big A.D. said:
3. being the subject of special transactions outside the normal trading in similar consumer goods
Would going to the trouble of importing coins from another country be "special" enough? There are plenty of other things that are "special" about buying ASEs or other silver coins anyway - if you asked for ASEs and were given $1 Federal Reserve Notes instead, you'd complain and sent them back for a refund.
I mostly bought my coins from other countries because they were cheaper there. It's obvious that those in UK that buy a monsterbox ASE's from let's say Germany, do it for the lower than UK normal tax there in Germany. Now where do you see "special", in terms of numismatics?
I read this law text simply as: car being sold at garage Joe at a standard price, but for ex at a public sale by bidding.
It's abit funny how you changed 'special transactions' to 'transactions with another country'. See, that is what I ment with 'interpreting law text freely / wishful thinking'. Hint: government may not follow you there.
Big A.D. said:
Applicable on a face value basis, on a similarity basis (compared to, say, a generic 1oz round), and on a like-for-like basis where a perfect MS70 coin is worth more than a crappy one that's been handled, dropped, dented and toned.
And here you do this once again. The law text was about cars in general, as to distinguish collectibles/oldtimers from cars in general.
Does the presence of a face value (eventually including property legal tender), indicate numismatic/collectible? Not for the UK government.
Aside of this, I start to wonder, you are picking here out every numbered property of that list for cars I gave, to question it on an individual level. Well, that list requires ALL properties to be positively matched. It's a logical AND list, not a series OR. One requirement not met suffices for declaration as non collectible.
Big A.D. said:
5. have to be in their original state, without major changes to chassis, steering, brake system, engine, etc
No issues there. The whole point is to find them in the best condition possible.
Here you do again that 'free interpretation'. 'Original state' isn't the same as 'best condition'. You make that from it. Original state here means no major changes, ex chasis, steering, etc. How do I know? It's in the law text. I just read what is there. You change stuff.
Big A.D. said:
Could easily be argued that age isn't necessarily relevant to value as a collectible (for coins or cars - there are plenty of newer cars with very small productions runs that sell for premiums on the secondary market).
You can argue with the law executioners as much you want, they can just say that they follow the law, and raise the 20% normal tax rate. You can then question the law makers, since they decided that 30 years old requirement, and ignored your 'very small production runs that sell for premiums...'.
And frankly, I can understand them in the standalone case 'very small production run'. How many mints out there produce dozens/hundreds 'limited mintage' coins every year? Every X days I receive an offer from a local (private) Mint here, with the Nth rare coin designed for blabla this and blabla that.
Will the higher premium alone suffice to meet this particular requirement in the list? Maybe. Will it meet all the other requirements? See, and as said above, that is also needed.
Big A.D. said:
7. being a model or type that is no longer in production
They ain't making ASEs with 2012 written on them any more.
Correct.
Hura ASE 2012 is collectible so lower tax regime?
No.
Fails other requirements in the list (in the collectible cars analogy list).
Big A.D. said:
Of course this brings up the question of what happens to coins that are not perfect MS70 specimens, but I guess you'd never really know unless you sent them all off for grading. Some people might not have the time to get around to doing that for...years...
Maybe the government won't care, and just consider them as normal rate taxed items.
For various reasons, see the law text.
Maybe government just treats the hard to find out items as for the normal tax rate. In the end, the reduced tax rate is an exemption from the normal tax rate. If finding out if it matches all exemption requirements, is a hard job, maybe they just see that as not their problem?