From: Joe Lee on

"michael adams" <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:5ddc1oF34aqdpU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>
> "Joe Lee" <invalid(a)noaddress> wrote in message
> news:466f1c1a$0$5863$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk...
>> Niel J Humphreys wrote:
>> > "Joe Lee" <invalid(a)noaddress> wrote in message
>> > news:466e033f$0$27857$db0fefd9(a)news.zen.co.uk...
>> >>> Now by
>> >>> it's very nature it is therefor impossible for them to quote the VAT
>> >>> inclusive selling price seeing as that figure is not known until the
>> >>> auction has ended, by which time they description can not be amended
>> >>> anyway.
>> >>
>> >> Sheer nonsense!
>> >
>> > Really? How do you propose sellers quote a VAT inclusive price in an
>> > auction description when this will not be known until the auction &
>> > bidding has ended? I can't wait to hear this one.
>>
>>
>> When listing you simply state the VAT inclusive price. (As you know - or
>> should know - this is a legal requirement when offerring goods for sale
>> to
>> consumers). Any offers you then receive will be inclusive of VAT. It
> really
>> couldn't be much simpler.
>>
>> As you're a VAT Registered trader you'll know that you're not required to
>> account for the VAT element of a sale (the Output Tax) until *after* a
> sale
>> has been made - *not* before it's been made.
>>
>> So where's the need for you (or any other VAT Registered trader) to know
> the
>> actual amount of VAT (the Output Tax) before a sale is made ?
>
> Because if a trader states that VAT will be added after the sale, then
> Ebay won't charge a fee on the VAT. That's why !

That affects the situation only *after* the a is made (& that's assuming the
item does actually sell),& has no bearing whatever to the situation at the
point of listing an item for sale, when the VAT inclusive price should be
tated.
>
> What is there in that sentence that you can't understand ?

I dunno, I can't see anything that I can't understand, except perhaps why
you made such an illogical statement considering that it has nothing ar all
to do with why a seller would need to know the actual amount of VAT before a
sale is made !!.


> Let's try it again.
>
> If a trader states that VAT will be added after the sale then
> Ebay won't charge the trader a fee on the VAT.

Jn which case ther trader will be acting illegally.

> Whereas if to accomodate people like you, a trader allows for the VAT
> element in the price, then they have to pay eBay fees not just on the
> actual selling price, but on the VAT element they've factored in.


It's nothing to do with "people like me", as you put it. It's a legal
requirement that the advertised price should be the final price for the
item, that is, it must be inclusive of VAT.

The problem lies with the way in which eBay choose to charge their fees to
VAT Registered traders. The answer does not lie in choosing to trade
illegally in order to circumvent eBays fee structure.


> So why should sellers have to pay an eBay fee on VAT they collect
> for the Governmentt ? That's the point.

They shouldn't have to, in fact they don't have to as there is no compulsion
to trade on eBay - it's an entirely voluntary decision - & that is the
bottom line. If as a trader you don;t agree with the way eBay charge their
fees & if complaining or lobbying them about it does no good (& IMO ot's
unlikely to as eBay are well aware of their monopoly position in this
sector), then, the only alternative is not to do business with them. It
amazes me that traders who comply with relevant legislation are not up in
arms about those who don't & effectively steal an unfair advantage by
creating an uneven playing field & are therefore stealing business from
them - the honest ones!


> However as most buyers prefer not be charged VAT afterwards -
> and Ebay won't accomadate any alternative arrangemnet in their
> fee regime, sellers have little choice but to swallow it.
>
> And be faced with stupid arguments from the likes of trolls
> like you into the bargain.

If it's allright with you I'll continue to operate in accordance with
relevant legislation rather than what might be the Law according to Michael
Adams.

Incidentally, do you have any idea whet the current legislation actually is
& says ?

And what Sections (or clauses) within it do you think a VAT Registered
trader selling goods ro consumers via Ebay could ignore & still successfully
defend themselves in Court ?

--
Joe Lee



> michael adams


From: bcc97 on
On 15 Jun, 09:42, "michael adams" <mjadam...(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> On Ebay transactions other than BINS - insofar as the winning bidder
> is concerned, in sales involving VAT registered traders -
>
> " the advertised price for any item is going to be whatever the
> winning bidder bids for that item - with in addition 17.5% VAT
> which the trader will subsequently pay to MHG. "
>
> This "advertises" what the price is going to be, insofar as it
> specifies how it's arrived at, i.e. not plucked out of thin air,
> while explicitly stating that a VAT element is included.
>
> And as such, contrary to what your legal advisors would have
> you believe, this is 100% legal.

For a BIN, the VAT-inclusive price must be given (Price Marking Order
2004). If it is given anywhere other than as the Buy It Now price,
the seller runs the risk of misleading the consumer and committing an
offence (Consumer Protection Act 1987, s.20).

For an auction, the Price Marking Order does not apply, but any
indication of price (including any indication of how the price is
arrived at) must not be misleading. The price which appears in the
listing is effectively an invitation to bidders, to place bids, and it
is therefore an indication as to how the price is to be arrived at.
If the price here does not include VAT, then again the seller runs the
risk of misleading the consumer and committing an offence.

The more prominent, unambiguous and clear the VAT statement is, the
lower the risk that the consumer will be misled. The VAT statement
would also have to appear next to the price indication in the search
page listing. This is impossible to achieve unless you put the VAT
statement in the item title or subtitle.

The 'fees on VAT' argument is completely irrelevant. The fees have to
be calculated in some way, and doing it as a % of the VAT-inclusive
price is just as valid a method of calculation as any other.

Or are you also going to argue that you shouldn't have to pay eBay
fees on other unavoidable costs -- such as the cost of paying your
employees (if you have any -- and part of which goes to HMG), or the
cost of buying the item you're selling). Taken to it's logical
conclusion, perhaps each item's advertised price should include the
profit on the deal and nothing else, and you could then add surcharges
for staff, premises, cost of stock, VAT etc.

From: michael adams on

"bcc97" <bcc97(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1181916830.821068.251140(a)q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 15 Jun, 09:42, "michael adams" <mjadam...(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > On Ebay transactions other than BINS - insofar as the winning bidder
> > is concerned, in sales involving VAT registered traders -
> >
> > " the advertised price for any item is going to be whatever the
> > winning bidder bids for that item - with in addition 17.5% VAT
> > which the trader will subsequently pay to MHG. "
> >
> > This "advertises" what the price is going to be, insofar as it
> > specifies how it's arrived at, i.e. not plucked out of thin air,
> > while explicitly stating that a VAT element is included.
> >
> > And as such, contrary to what your legal advisors would have
> > you believe, this is 100% legal.
>
> For a BIN, the VAT-inclusive price must be given (Price Marking Order
> 2004). If it is given anywhere other than as the Buy It Now price,
> the seller runs the risk of misleading the consumer and committing an
> offence (Consumer Protection Act 1987, s.20).
>
> For an auction, the Price Marking Order does not apply, but any
> indication of price (including any indication of how the price is
> arrived at) must not be misleading. The price which appears in the
> listing is effectively an invitation to bidders, to place bids,

....

There is no "price" which appears in the listing.

All that appears in the listing is the current bid.

Prices are set by sellers. Bids are set by bidders.

The current bid isn't an invitation to anyone - quite the contrary
in fact, ideally its intended as a disincentive for anyone else
to bid.

So you're totaly wrong there for a start.

....


> and it
> is therefore an indication as to how the price is to be arrived at.

....

Therefore nothing.

Your claim that the current bid is intended as an invitation to
further bidders is factually incorrect and so therefore nothing
further can be inferred from it.

....

> If the price here does not include VAT, then again the seller runs the
> risk of misleading the consumer and committing an offence.
>

There is no "price". There is only a current bid.

If it's made clear in the listing that VAT of 17.5% will be added to the
winning bid, then there is no risk of misleading able to read simple
English. Never mind committ any offence.


> The more prominent, unambiguous and clear the VAT statement is, the
> lower the risk that the consumer will be misled.

Get away !


> The VAT statement
> would also have to appear next to the price indication in the search
> page listing. This is impossible to achieve unless you put the VAT
> statement in the item title or subtitle.


Again there is no "price" indication. There is only a current bid as
set by a bidder. Which has nothing to do with the seller at all.

>
> The 'fees on VAT' argument is completely irrelevant. The fees have to
> be calculated in some way, and doing it as a % of the VAT-inclusive
> price is just as valid a method of calculation as any other.

No it isn't.

>
> Or are you also going to argue that you shouldn't have to pay eBay
> fees on other unavoidable costs -- such as the cost of paying your
> employees (if you have any -- and part of which goes to HMG), or the
> cost of buying the item you're selling). Taken to it's logical
> conclusion, perhaps each item's advertised price should include the
> profit on the deal and nothing else, and you could then add surcharges
> for staff, premises, cost of stock, VAT etc.


The fee on the VAT component of the total price on non BIN transacations
can be easily and legitimately avoided. It isn't "unavoidable" at all.
Why is that such a difficult concept for you to understand ?




michael adams

....

>




From: Owain on
Joe Lee wrote:
>>So why should sellers have to pay an eBay fee on VAT they collect
>>for the Governmentt ? That's the point.
> They shouldn't have to, in fact they don't have to as there is no compulsion
> to trade on eBay - it's an entirely voluntary decision - & that is the
> bottom line.

Whereas when it comes to things like excise duty, VAT is charged on the
price of the item and on the duty. It's bad enough having to pay Ebay
fees on tax, even worse having to pay tax on tax.

Owain


From: colm on
Niel J Humphreys [admin(a)snowdoncomputersAaargh.co.uk] said:
> "colm" <C(a)C.C.C.C> wrote in message

> > Indeed, sellers simply have to decide what is more valuable to them - a
> > few extra quid in the bank or customers who are not left feeling
> > confused and/or mislead. And the answer will probably be different for
> > different sellers.
>
> Just show the average level of intelligence/common sense these days when so
> many people seem unable to read "17.5% VAT to be added to auction end price"
> and then get out a calculator (or even use the one in Windows) to work out
> the final price - or deduct the VAT from how much they are wanting to pay
> and bid accordingly.
>
> Is the general populace really so stupid these days? I realise that spelling
> has gone down the shitter these past few years but elemental mathematics
> too?

You are determined to be hard done by on this topic but fundamentally,
in my view as an ordinary punter, you are wrong in expecting all
customers to take to VAT being added after a sale as easily as you seem
to think they should do.

It isn't what people are used to and it is not what they expect, and it
is even arguably against the law so they you are just bound to get a
number who feel that there is something suss going on. Calling them
stupid simply shows how wide you are of the mark.

And as for your final point - isn't that an interesting one now you
bring it up. Lots of people find percentages hard and I doubt that has
much to do with modern education and I would imagine as many older
people as young would struggle with this one. My mother for example (72)
wouldn't have a clue.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prev: payperdrop_uk
Next: cancel an auction