Exavor Diesel

I think one way for LL to resolve this issue without putting them at risk of conflicting with HMRC, is to simply allow residents to pay for tier in Linden Dollars instead of USD. Current government legislation cannot apply VAT to virtual currency AFAIK. Of course, the exchange rates fluctuate on a daily basis so they would need to create a system that automatically does the conversions. They have this sort of system in place already for LindeX transactions. Of course, LindeX transactions would still be subject to VAT but this would still be a major advantage to current and prospective Europeans in the virtual land sales business considering they would not be using LindeX to buy Lindens.

I think that is slightly different. By the current EU law, LL could charge us any amount of VAT as long as it corresponds with the VAT rate in at least ONE designated EU country. In theory, they could charge all European residents the UK VAT rate, which is 20%. This would then benefit people living in Sweden (who would otherwise pay their own VAT rate at 25%) but on the other hand, it wouldn't benefit residents in other countries like Cyprus because their standard VAT rate is 15%. LL already abide by the new 2015 legislation by applying the VAT rate which corresponds with the one in the country of residence. (i.e. if you live in the UK, you pay the UK VAT rate. If you live in France, you pay the French VAT rate etc etc.) It's all a load of BS however you look at it. I have spent hours reading so much crap on the europa.eu website. Much of it is open to interpretation meaning that I have to cross reference much of what I read in order to avoid getting misled by the very site which is supposed to keep us all informed... I am starting to see why LL wanted to save themselves the hassle by just abiding by with whatever crap the EU come up with. That said, the fact remains. LL is not governed by the EU and I've yet to see anyone shoot that argument down. .

Does anyone have any evidence that says that says that non EU member states only have to pay VAT if they choose to? I don't have this and if I did, we would have a much stronger case. @Ceka Cianci "LL doesn't have to abide by the law and EU doesn't have to let them do business there if they decided not to pay the Vat.." I doubt there would be any consequences there because fortunately the EU has never played a big part in censorship. (compared to other nations that is) I do not think our society would tolerate it in the slightest and given the current state of the EU, I doubt they would make any changes to this at the moment because it would only risk diverting attention from where it's most needed right now.

Yep, we know that but it doesn't explain why LL has to oblige to this. What's *legally* stopping them from ignoring it? Nobody has explained the logic behind this here. With this logic, it would suggest that the EU could make up *any* legislation under the sun and then expect every country around the globe to abide by it. Why don't they do that? Simply because we all know that the EU government can only govern the EU and not the entire world. The EU has absolutely no control over countries which are not within the EU, including the United States. (Or under some kind of agreement like Norway - let's not get into that one though.) I think some people are having trouble getting their heads around the concept that "Just because the EU says it's the law, it doesn't mean to say it's a valid law." Of course, nobody is above the law so to speak, but they may live in a place where the law simply does not apply! I would love to see Iran try to impose many of its laws on the USA. If the government of Iran suddenly told you that you could not go outside in the US without wearing a veil, would you expect people to take any notice? Of course they wouldn't! Why? Because it would mean didly sqaut in your country as Iran has no control over what the US does. Same principle should apply to the EU government or anyone else for that matter.

To be honest, that's not really fair on them. They are front line workers and with respect, they're probably paid far less than those who make these decisions. They're simply not likely to have answers to hand, other than what's said in the wiki. (which as we know, is questionable material) It's not their fault and I'm sure many of them will understand our concerns. The best channel is probably via the ticket system because things can be escalated and hopefully not brushed under the carpet. However, I have been known to be somewhat of an optimist.

I think we should put the US sales tax thing aside. My comment on that was clearly incorrect and was based on a previous comment someone had made in this topic. It's not directly related to the topic at hand. I'm awaiting for LL's response to my ticket regarding the VAT issue. I've asked for it to be escalated. I'm not expecting it to have much impact but if enough people kick up a fuss (and continue to do so - in a constructive manner), I'm sure LL will consider exploring their options once again. The article someone linked above (http://deltango.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/cogs-in-the-vat-machine) is very interesting. It looks at it from a slightly different angle as it gives a good insight into the possible implications to sales on SL, with some exceptionally good analogies. One could say it's all old news now but that's not to say we should let it blow over.

I knew there was something I was missing in my previous post. I have since edited it in order to cover the expected response from Sy Beck but I was a little late. "But doesn't Linden Lab have offices in Europe? Yes but all Second Life Residents are customers of the US corporate entity." That is from the wiki. I would take it as a pinch of salt. (not even that in some cases) The wiki is often out of date and IIRC, it's no longer maintained except for LSL scripting articles. I don't know why LL scrapped the future of the wiki in favour of the knowledge base because the concept of a wiki seems better to me. That's perhaps best for another thread though.

@Ceka Cianci My argument is quite simple. "LL is not based in the EU, nor does it operate in the EU. Therefore, it should not have to abide by EU rules & legislation." The EU can say whatever they want. They can make up whatever laws they dream of. However, what they can't do is make it mandatory for non member states (i.e. countries outside of the EU) to abide by these laws. They simply do not have the power to do that, even if they wanted to. They DO NOT govern the world. If it is proven that LL does indeed have offices in the EU, I will give up because it will blow my argument out of the water, However, I still believe that LL no longer has offices in the EU. Their contact page states: "945 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 +1 (415) 243-9000 Note that this number is not Second Life Support. Fax: 415.243.9045 We also have offices in Seattle, Davis, Boston, and Reston. http://lindenlab.com/contact This implies (but does not necessarily prove) that they do not have offices outside of the USA. If that is the case, they don't have to abide by EU legislation & rules. It makes no difference whether or not they purchase various services from the EU. (I'm sure they do) - as long as they don't operate in the EU as a business.

"Finally it is an obtuse argument to say that somebody is not obliged to abide by the laws of a country where they trade. Are you saying that gun manufacturers in the US can freely sell guns in the UK because they don't have to abide by UK laws? European companies have to abide by US laws when operating there and it is the same in reverse." The UK law would only be broken when: 1. The firearm is imported into the UK 2. The owner of the firearm does not have a license to own or operate the said firearm in the UK If US legislation permits the exportation of firearms, then no crime would be comitted in the USA. In contrast, the services which LL provide do not leave the USA. Foreign residents simply connect to LL's servers in the US. The services are provided by physical equipment. No physical equipment is brought to UK or to EU grounds. I still stand by my opinion that because LL is not in the EU and does not operate in the EU, it is not governed by EU law. You know it makes sense. The only reason for this silly EU rule is to make it more competitive for the benefit of EU businesses. (As non EU businesses were somewhat cheaper in the past.) However, what the EU government appears to have overlooked is that foreign countries like the US already charge their own form of sales tax. This means that European residents effectively pay two of the same taxes. Again, this is completely absurd. @Phil Deakins Thanks for your input. If you could provide some supporting evidence, perhaps we could get somewhere with that.

All this information is all well and good but it still does not change the fact that LL is not in the EU and is therefore not legally bound by EU legislation. Just becasue the EU may say it, it doesn't mean that it's right or even a valid law. Frankly, these laws are most likely written by people who don't have a clue about the internet. In summary, the EU can say whatever they like but the reality is that they cannot control businesses in countries which are not even in the EU. The idea alone is completely absurd. I am certainly no lawyer but it doesn't take Einstein to work out that the law is unworkable and invalid.

I have read that but it does not change the fact that LL is NOT governed by EU legislation and therefore does not have to abide with, or comply to EU legislation. You say that some companies have absorbed the cost instead of passing it on to their customers. However, this is often not the case. For instance, when I contacted Softlayer (They provide dedicated services on a leased basis) about this, they neither request VAT from me, nor did they absorb the cost of this for me. This is not uncommon. They are not breaking any laws because they only operate in the USA and are therefore NOT governed by EU legislation. Effectively, this means EU laws do not apply to them. This should be the case for LL providing they no longer have offices in the EU. To prove this, I have attached a screenshot of a conversation with a member of their accounting department. http://i43.tinypic.com/24vu147.png It doesn't prove that they don't absorb the cost and pay it on my behalf. However, I have checked and can see that they're not VAT registered. They cannot pay VAT unless they're VAT registered. This would suggest that they do not pay it on my behalf. Same story with many (if not most) other companies like Softlayer. (who are also very good may I add - they're not a small backstreet US company. They're one of the biggest dedicated server providers in the world.)

@Sy Beck From the quote below: "These principles establish that the rules for consumption taxes (such as VAT) should result in taxation in the jurisdiction where consumption takes place." It says "should" and not "must". The term "should" does not necessarily imply that it's mandatory. After all, the question "why?" still remains given that LL is NOT governed by EU legislation. (on the assumption that they no longer have offices in the EU)

@Sy Beck Then why is it that all of the US comapnies I have bought services from did not charge me VAT? I have leased dedicated servers from big companies in the past few years and was not charged VAT. I have since contacted a number of large US businesses to find out whether or not I will have to pay them VAT and if not, I have asked them if they will pay it for me. (i.e. absorbing the cost) No doubt it will cause them some confusion but either way, I'm pretty sure I will receive answers to support my argument.

@Sy Beck I understand exactly what you're saying but I still question the logic here. If LL is not governed by European legislation in any way, then there's nothing to say that they have to abide by EU legislation. If for example, I visited the USA from the UK and brought over my British Land Rover, I would not be expected to abide by UK speed limits. Why? Because US law applies and not UK law. I understand it's not a 100% fair comparison, but hopefully it will help emphasise my point. I think one of the main questions which will help answer whether or not we should be paying VAT, is "Does LL still have offices in the EU? If they do, then that will imeddiately shoot down any argument I've made because it would then explain why they have to charge VAT. However, I have done some research though and can't find any evidence to suggest that they still have offices within the Euro zone. I can only find evidence to suggest the contrary. The page linked below suggests that they only have offices in the US. http://lindenlab.com/contact

@ Jenni Lefevre They have separate numbers because some people are unable to call foreign numbers. (their call tarrif with their provider may not allow it) Therefore, LL has provided these support numbers in order to prevent it from becoming a problem and also to reduce costs for the call payer. Basically these numbers simply re-direct the call to the office in the USA. It does not have to have any bearing on the actual location. (Which is why sometimes when you ring a US telephone number, you will often end up speaking to someone in an Indian call centre, (not LL))

@ Dres, They don't DO business in the UK. They may TAKE business from the UK but they certainly don't DO business with us in the UK. (caps to emphasise the big difference) Even if they did, and based on your logic, LL would have to comply with every law around the world, in almost every single country given that LL has residents from all over the globe. We all know that doesn't happen simply because it can't happen. It would not be practical and there would be far too many conflicts & contradictions in law to make it feasible.

But LL is not under the jurisdication of my government. Therefore in theory, I don't see why LL cannot ignore such legislations given that they're not legally bound by these legislations. Based on that logic, any government could make up any legislation in order to take money from companies based in other countries. We all know that in the real world, there's no reason for this to be allowed and we also know that most companies would not play ball with such a concept.

I'm from the UK and I'm paying an extra 20% on all purchases to LL. The concept of paying VAT to a company which resides in the USA completely baffles me, even after reading LL's article on VAT. (linked below) The question remains and the question is WHY? I know that European legislation states that this is a legal requirement. However, LL does not reside in Europe and is therefore not under European jurisdiction. I also know that LL once had offices based in the UK and I wouldn't be surprised if this influenced them to charge VAT as there may have been implications if they didn't. However, they no longer have offices in the UK so surely they can stop charging VAT? If I wanted to rent a dedicated server (probably the most like for like service comparable to a sim) from pretty much any of the USA's largest data centres, I wouldn't be charged VAT. In fact, I don't recall being charged VAT on any services from US companies which don't have offices in Europe. So if I don't have to pay it to them (some of these companies are larger than LL) then why am I paying VAT to LL? To put things into perspective, if Iran suddenly said that LL should give them 50% of the revenue taken from Iranians, I'm 99% sure LL would not play ball. To be honest, I could see them laughing at the desks at such an idea. So the question is, why are Europeans paying VAT to a company based in the USA, which isn't governed by European legislation? http://secondlife.com/corporate/vat.php

================== Anyone looking for a cheap skybox land (50m - large platform) on a new adult sim? 300 prims for just L$500/w. If interested, please click on one of the SLurls below! :) (I only have a few left) If you require more prims, please contact me to discuss options. Free security orb also available on request. ================== Platform 2: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Hemel/148/150/1026 Platform 3: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Hemel/165/160/1526 Platform 4: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Hemel/164/155/2026 ==================

I am selling a 3808sqm (869 prims) parcel on an adult mainland region. (Arket) This parcel is ideal for skyboxes and is being sold below the market average for adult mainland parcels. Only L$25,999 (L$6.8sqm) http://slurl.com/secondlife/Arket/133/72/76

I'm glad you all like my idea!

I am selling a 4608sqm (1054 prims) protected roadside parcel on an adult mainland region. (Arket) The bonus is that you will only pay LL tier for 4096sqm providing you don't already own any other land! This makes it an ideal size for many. Only L$19999 (L$4.3sqm) http://slurl.com/secondlife/Arket/164/32/69 Neighbouring parcel also available.

Anyone looking for cheap land on a new adult sim? Waterfront, 4096sqm, 937 prims for just L$1300/w. (Last plot available) IM me or check my picks if interested. :) http://slurl.com/secondlife/Hemel/135/201/21

I think it would be a good idea if those who own large amounts of land on SL could be entitled to use an ***exclusive*** title, "Lord" or "Lady". Again, this should be exclusive to those who own large plots of land on SL and their partners. (I.e. the Lady & the Lord) Why? It's fun and follows old traditions. It would also allow land owners to be recognised for their investment in SL. After all, they're spending hundreds of dollars on SL every month, so why shouldn't they be privilidged in some way? It's also a good novelty and may encourage land sales. Suggested critiera: - Must own at least one full estate or the equivalent amount of land. (65,536sqm) - Title is automatically lost/revoked as soon as the resident no longer owns at least 1 full estate or the equivalent amount of land And yes, I know we can make up our own titles, but that's not the point as that's not exclusive in any way. What do you think?