Phil Deakins
-
Posts
13,558 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by Phil Deakins
-
-
The page that you linked to is an official page of HM Revenue and Customs - they are the VAT people of the government. And there is nothing in that page that suggests that LL have to be VAT registered and collect VAT. The point of view doesn't matter because that page says that LL does not have to be VAT registered. It doesn't say it explicitly. It's because there are no circumstances listed in that page that would require LL to be registered. It does say that they can choose to be registered, and that's exactly what LL has chosen to be. They do it by choice.
-
16 wrote:Phil Deakins wrote:LL no longer has a business presence in the EU (as far as I know) so they no longer have to collect VAT for the EU, and they do it now out of choice. That's all I've been saying.just on this bitthe link that Orca provide is Her Majesty Revenue and Customs. this one:is possible that they have it wrong and what you understand is right. it just dont seem possible that they are wrong tho
I've just looked at the page that you linked to, 16, and I can't find anwhere that indicates that LL *has* to be registered for VAT and collect it.
Under the heading, "You supply goods to the UK from abroad, or intend to start" (the only relevant heading), and its sub-heading, "If you don't have a place of business in the UK or live here" (the only relevant sub-heading), the first thing it says is,"If you have to register for one of the reasons described above, ...". The only 3 reasons described above are:-
(1) Supplying and delivering goods from another EU country
(2) Supplying goods on which an 8th or 13th Directive claim has been made or is going to be made
(3) Supplying and delivering excise goods from another country
None of those reasons apply to LL.
So I can't see anything on that page that even suggests that LL has to be registered and collect VAT. Right at the top is says that LL can choose to do it, but that's all. And that's exactly what they now do. They did register when they had to - when they had a business presence over here - and maybe they are keeping the registration in case they want expand their operations again, but they don't have to.
-
This is a combined reply to your last 3 posts, 16
The EU had it right when they said that the law they passed is unenforceable. That's because, as I've been saying, they can't make laws that people and businesses in other countries have to abide by. So, as I've also been saying, LL is no longer obliged by any law to collect VAT, and they now do it by choice.
As for the possibility of the businesse's employees being arrested etc. on a visit is concerned, It can't be done. Well, arrested, yes, but tried and convicted for a crime, no. That's because no law was broken in the country that has the law and where the trial takes place.
I do realise that there have been one or two high profile (here) cases where British people who have not broken any British or EU law have been extradited to the U.S. because what they did in the UK is against the law in the U.S. On the face of it, it does sound absolutely wrong to extradite people in such cases. But I believe one of them was a breach of U.S. security, and it would make sense for countries to have extradition agreements to cover some activities. On reflection, I think the UK ended up denying that particular extradition request after first granting it, but it was an example of why such things can happen, even though none of the country's own laws were broken. Collecting taxes isn't even a shadow on the type of activity that such agreements should apply to, so that sort of thing doesn't come into this discussion. I only mentioned it in case anyone wants to cite such cases in this discussion.
-
I never see the ad because I usually manage click to login before any of those graphics appear. Also, I don't have the window at full screen so, even if the graphics appear, that ad is off the right side.
But I logged out an in again to see what you are talking about. Then I clicked on the ad. I rummaged around in the website and it doesn't tell me what Patterns actually is. If I buy it, what do I do with it? It doesn't tell me that. I suspect it's just a children's drawing programme but it doesn't actually say what it is.
-
Pussycat Catnap wrote:(That said, in a 100 years they will remember Gates, but not Jobs - Jobs made toys for an era, Gates will be remembered for what he did -after- leaving his toy company.Think Andrew Carnegie).
In 100 years time, I hope that Bill Gates will be remembered for bringing cheap computers to the world and not because he retired. It should not be forgotten that, because of IBM's gross underestimate of how many PCs would be sold (they estimated 1.5 million), causing them to leave the architecture open and not to close off the operating system, Bill Gates sold the operating system to companies that could produce the architecture. That caused huge competition for IBM, and IBM lost. We have cheap computers today because IBM failed to realise how popular home computers would be, and Bill Gates taking advantage of that. Of course, it would probably have come about a different way had IBM had more foresight, but they didn't and Bill Gates caused it.
For me, that's Bill Gates' legacy to the world and that's what he should be remembered for 100 years from now.
-
16 wrote:thanks (:+i read on that link in section titled: "You supply goods to the UK from abroad, or intend to start""Common examples are mail order and Internet sales. If the value of your distance sales in the calendar year from 1 January goes over the distance selling threshold, currently £70,000, you must register for UK VAT. You can also register voluntarily, if you are trading below the threshold or you intend to start trading."so looks like linden have to register in UK for VAT. am assume that linden doing more than 70,000 pounds business in UK+can understand what you saying about EUlittle black dress makers in SL and how that VAT can be an impost on them trying to earn a little bit money for themselves. even for some RL things, like to help pay their power bill, buy new computer and softwares evencan only really go back to where this all started from here. and we done it all to death already i think and i just end up repeat myself i i do that. so i wont (:
Wrong. The EU can make any rules/laws they want to but they can't enforce them on citizens and companies in other countries. It really is that simple.
What would happen to a U.S. company that sells more than the threshold to, say, UK customers, and does not register with the UK authorities for VAT? Nothing, of course. The UK cannot take the U.S. company to the U.S. court because they haven't broken any U.S. laws, and they can't take them to court in the UK because there's nobody here to charge with anything. The best that the EU can do is prevent the company's goods from being delivered in the EU, but that's all, and it wouldn't be easy.
-
Deltango Vale wrote:Regarding my own personal ethical position, I believe it is unethical for companies to sacrifice long-term growth for short-term gain. In the case of Linden Lab, I believe the company did precisely that - at everyone's expense.
How on earth did ethics get into it. It has nothing to do with ethics. If a company wants to shoot itself in the foot, it is free to do so. It's neither ethical nor unethical.
-
16 wrote:my understanding of the EU legislation is that a foreign company wishing to do business in the EU with EU citizens has to have a legal presence in the EU (in some EU countries) for tax purposes even if they not have any physical assets or staff even
A foreign country wishing to business with EU citizens does not have to have any form of representation within the EU. Actually, I should say that a different way because I suppose that some countries may prohibit their citizens from buying stuff from foreign companies unless the foreign company is represented within their own. I very much doubt that any EU country has such laws but I can't guarantee it. What I can say is that no foreign company needs to have a business presence in the UK in order to supply UK people with goods.
We in the EU buy goods and services from all over the world via the internet, including from the U.S., without companies in other countries collecting VAT from us. I do it myself and LL is the only foreign company that collects VAT from me. They had to do it at one time because they fancied themselves as a worldwide company and had a business presence here, but not any more. Now they do it by choice. They don't have to collect VAT any more but they do.
-
16 wrote:am not quite sure what you mean now (:maybe the VAT law a bit different in UK to where i am. so am moslty going off how it works herelike if in this example, using linden just bcif i pay linden say $100 in total for a GST-rateable service and they pay, or even not pay, any GST then i am entitled as a GST registered taxpayer to claim a GST credit on the $100 as if they hadthe judiicial principle being that i am not responsible for linden paying, or not paying, GST on what is a GST-rateable activity. the Courts upheld that on quite a few cases here. the Judges always rule that is the responsibility of the Tax Dept to ensure that linden pay their taxes and not mine
I agree with you. I did before. All I have been saying is that one country cannot make laws that people in other countires have to abide by. The only time when businesses in other countires have to abide by a law made in, say, the EU is when the business in another country also has a business presence in the EU. At the time when LL started to collect VAT from EU customers, they had a business presence in the EU, so they had to abide by EU VAT laws. LL no longer has a business presence in the EU (as far as I know) so they no longer have to collect VAT for the EU, and they do it now out of choice. That's all I've been saying.
-
Deltango Vale wrote:Phil, read the article. All the quotes, links and math are in the article (and followup comment).
I don't need to read the article. I know that one country cannot make laws that people in other countries have to abide by. It's that simple.
-
Deltango Vale wrote:For those who have not read the article, the facts are these:
-
Linden Lab had achoice. Linden Lab stated clearly that it had achoice
-
Linden Lab made apolicydecision. Linden Lab stated clearly that it made apolicydecision
Linden Lab didn't have a choice. They had offices in the EU and, therefore, they had to collect VAT from EU users. It's the law in the EU, where LL had offices at that time, so they had no choice.
If the idea that they had a choice came from the article you pointed to, then the writer is wrong and you have been misled.
-
-
16 wrote:psi just want to make more clear about the VAT invoicesif we both are VAT registered and i pay you for a service and can show to tax auditor that i paid the money then even if you dont provide me with a VAT invoice then i can still claim the VAT back on my return. you still have to pay the VAT to the taxman. the tax liability is not dependent on you issuing a actual invoice or not if you are VAT registerededit: this actual is what i meant to say above which i wrote wrong (:
If I am VAT registered and I collect VAT, I do have to pay that VAT to the taxman (Custom & Excise in the UK) regardless of invoices. That's true. But I was talking about a country making a law (as in my last post).
-
16 wrote:Phil Deakins wrote:16 wrote:is another thing that sometimes gets missedin countries that got VAT-like laws then the tax code says is only payable once on any goods or service. so is no double-taxation. which is fairso a VAT-registered taxpayer can claim back any VAT that they have paid for goods and services against any VAT that they are due to payin some tax periods it means that can even get a VAT credit and the tax department actual pays you money+so if a VAT-payable land baron gets their VAT paid by linden then they are still able to claim a VAT credit on the amount that linden paidso lets say: pay $100 include 11.11% VAT. then the baron can claim the VAT as a credit and only pay effective $89. so they get cheaper land than say a USA baron who have to pay the whole $100. and also get the social/society benefits of the taxes paid by linden+is this kinda thing that we can sometimes forget or disremember when we get stuck in our own personal o.m.gs
That's not right. A VAT registered person/business can only claim the VAT back if a VAT invoice has been received (an invoice that itemises the actual VAT paid). VAT can't be claimed back if it hasn't been invoiced for and paid.For it to happen, LL would need to provide a VAT invoice to the user, as they do now if the user is VAT registered and requests it. When LL paid the VAT from company funds, no such invoices were offered, issued, or existed, so the user didn't pay any VAT to LL. What LL paid as VAT could not be claimed back by the user.yes thats rightif i am a VAT registered taxpayer then LL have to provide me with a VAT invoice when i ask. i cant make a claim without it. and if i was a VAT registered EU land baron then i would asklinden dont have to provide a VAT invoice to anyone who doesnt ask for one. VAT registered or not+just on linden having to must collect/pay VAT from services provided to their EU customers. they still have to collect/pay the VAT even if they dont have a physical presence in the EU. they got no choicehere is article about whydont think the EU law specfically targetted at companies like linden been changed since. maybe but dont think soI haven't read the N.Y.TImes article but I can state with absolute certainty that no country can make laws that people/businesses in other countires, that have no presence in the country that made the law, have to comply with. So, since LL has no presence in the EU, they do not have to collect VAT from EU residents. They had to collect it when they had a presence in the EU but not any more. They collect it now by choice and not by necessity.
-
16 wrote:is another thing that sometimes gets missedin countries that got VAT-like laws then the tax code says is only payable once on any goods or service. so is no double-taxation. which is fairso a VAT-registered taxpayer can claim back any VAT that they have paid for goods and services against any VAT that they are due to payin some tax periods it means that can even get a VAT credit and the tax department actual pays you money+so if a VAT-payable land baron gets their VAT paid by linden then they are still able to claim a VAT credit on the amount that linden paidso lets say: pay $100 include 11.11% VAT. then the baron can claim the VAT as a credit and only pay effective $89. so they get cheaper land than say a USA baron who have to pay the whole $100. and also get the social/society benefits of the taxes paid by linden+is this kinda thing that we can sometimes forget or disremember when we get stuck in our own personal o.m.gs
That's not right. A VAT registered person/business can only claim the VAT back if a VAT invoice has been received (an invoice that itemises the actual VAT paid). VAT can't be claimed back if it hasn't been invoiced for and paid.
For it to happen, LL would need to provide a VAT invoice to the user, as they do now if the user is VAT registered and requests it. When LL paid the VAT from company funds, no such invoices were offered, issued, or existed, so the user didn't pay any VAT to LL. What LL paid as VAT could not be claimed back by the user.
-
Amethyst Jetaime wrote:I read the article and disagree with it. I think how you feel about it depends on your point of view.When LL absorbed the VAT and paid it themselves they weresubsidizingthe tier for Europeans, hardly fair to people that live in countries without VAT. According to the European Commission Taxes and Custom Union page, VAT is paid for by consumers similar to a sales tax in the US, and is a percentage of the cost of the goods.: (The bolding is mine.)purchased over the internet are liable to VAT. The rate of VAT applicable to private individuals will depend on the status of the vendor. If the vendor is established in the European Union, he will charge the rate of VAT applicable in his Member State of establishment.If the vendor is not established in the European Union, he will charge VAT at the rate applicable in the Member State of consumption of the service.So the actual laws require LL to charge for the VAT.Some states have sales tax in the US but LL does not pay it for those members, so why should Europeans be subsidized at a rate equal to the taxes they are supposed to be charged for? I agree with 16. If Europeans don't want to pay the tax there is a remedy. Change the law.
Like you, I agree with 16. But I'm replying to you because of the quote you provided - specifically the part that you bolded and that I changed the colour of to red.
That sentence is official but it does not hold any water whatsoever. No country can make laws that people of other countries have to abide by when they are not in the country that has the laws. That sentence says that companies that have no presence in the EU have to charge their EU customers VAT. It's as plain as the nose on your face that it is total rubbish. (not your face specifically, Amethyst
)When LL started charging their EU customers VAT, they had to do it because they had a presence in the EU - at least 2 offices in the UK and probably offices in one or more other EU countries. I may be mistaken, but I think they no longer have any presence in the EU. I think they closed all their overseas operations. If they are no longer in the EU, they are not obliged to charge EU customers VAT and they now do it by choice.
-
Coby Foden wrote:We definitely need separate crystal spheres for the SL sun and moon.Rotating at different speeds. :matte-motes-big-grin:
Have you any idea how much those crystal spheres cost these days? There is no way that LL is going to shell out for another one in the current financial climate.
-
Regarding LL, the words "couldn't", "pissup" and "brewery" spring readily to mind.
-
Czari Zenovka wrote:The white moon not looking like yours - no idea. I was just as surprised to see the transparent moon in your photo. Only differences I can think of are:1. My photos were several years ago, so maybe SL updated the moon graphics.
The stars have been in front of the moon since I arrived in late 2006.
-
Explain please. Do you mean that they are running a single sim that measures 512m x 512m (that's the equivalent land area of 4 normal sims) and bigger? And, if they are doing that, do those megasims have normal sims on their borders? E.g. 2 normal sims along each side of a 512x512 sim.
-
It may not be in use any more. I only remember from when I was a nipper too. But it did fit 16's OP very nicely
I am a time traveller though - at least in my head. The older you get, the more you have to reminisce about - and the more you enjoy it
-
That's because the sun and moon are on the same crystal sphere and, therefore, they orbit at the same speed/rate. Therefore they are always in the same positions with respect to each other, which means that the sun always shines on the moon from the same angle. To have phases of the moon, it is necessary for the sun to shine on it from different angles; i.e. to orbit the world at a different rate to each other.
-
That's how the old multi-user scrolling text games worked - and single-user adventure games. People didn't move to locations as they moved around the place. Instead they were simply provided with the data that was relevant to the location they 'appeared' to move to.
As a programmer, it used to puzzle me until I decided to write one. Then the method became obvious. Using the same method, I also wrote a simple graphics one that I had online with multiple users, but only for testing and demonstrating.
It could be done with a system like SL but it would be a completely different way of doing things. So different that it probably isn't worth LL doing it just for the sake of smooth passage around the various suitable areas like seas. I don't know though. Maybe it would be worth doing, and creating special areas for it.
-
Porky Gorky wrote:Phil Deakins wrote:We have a phrase here - "box your ears" - as in, I'll box your ears if you do that again. It's usually said by a parent to a child and means, "I'll smack you" - that sort of thing. So go for it, 16 - box their ears!
When you say "here" do you mean the 1970's?I mean here where I live - in the north of England. I don't know if it's specific to the north or not though.
-
lol. Good one, Maddy.
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
The Downgrade Survey
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Just as aside here. LL doesn't carry out activities on UK or EU soil. They collect VAT from EU people when we pay tier or when we buy land from them (sims). That's us carrying out activities on U.S. soil - not the other way round - if "activities" is the right for it.
It's the same as me renting server space, or a server, from a U.S. company that has its servers in the U.S. They wouldn't charge me VAT, of course. If they have servers or offices in the UK, it would be different.