JNugent
As another poster has quite rightly pointed out, it is irrelevant whether one labels the CC a "tax" or not, in terms of the Vienna Convention. The issue is whether it is a charge, not whether it is a tax. It may well be legitimate to use both labels.
girly truck driver 135Ian Johnston What can you POSSIBLY imagine you have gained by snipping out the context for my (very reasonable) statement? Is your position THAT weak? Here it is again in full: "Of course, third parties...
Though given your rather strange obsession with all this, you ought to read the following (equally "official") document :-
This is a highly detailed and technical submission from the ONS to the OECD National Accounts Experts Meeting of October 2003, in which it is stated :-
"The London Congestion Charge could have been seen as a source of tax revenue if the money had gone in to a general fund for spending on the full range of services. However the legislation specifies that the income from the congestion charge can only be spent on a limited range of transport related items in London. Transport in London is organised as a number of real and quasi public corporations owned by local government in London. These provide market services to users of London's transport including underground trains and buses. We see the road charge scheme as an additional market service provided by them. There is cross subsidy between different categories of user but this is common in the provision of services in the private sector. The congestion charge is therefore a service charge not a tax because of the ring fenced accounting inherent in the scheme."
So the CC is officially not a tax. It is also officially a tax. If I were you, I'd do the usual and just stick with the Nugentspeak definition!
