Letter From HMRC Re: Ebay Account

Stuck_1

Flyonthewall wrote: »

I don't know who the someone is that you refer to, but that's rubbish.

HMRC can't possibly be worse off, they can only possibly gain from it.

If those who aren't paying tax stop selling then HMRC don't lose out from that, they were never gaining anything to lose.

If they stop selling then people who would have bought from them would then buy elsewhere. So Royal Mail wouldn't lose out at all and HMRC would be gaining money from the businesses that people buy from instead.

The only people to lose out are those selling as a business and not declaring it and they deserve to lose out because they're breaking the law.

You mean like the Chinese sellers that are already flooding the uk online markets with dangerous junk

Flyonthewall

Stuck_1 wrote: »

You mean like the Chinese sellers that are already flooding the uk online markets with dangerous junk

If you weren't buying from China before why would you after? You'd buy from another UK seller.

Chinese sellers are really another issue considering they're there regardless.

Also, not all Chinese stuff is dangerous.

listonosz

Flyonthewall wrote: »

I don't know who the someone is that you refer to, but that's rubbish.

HMRC can't possibly be worse off, they can only possibly gain from it.

If those who aren't paying tax stop selling then HMRC don't lose out from that, they were never gaining anything to lose.

If they stop selling then people who would have bought from them would then buy elsewhere. So Royal Mail wouldn't lose out at all and HMRC would be gaining money from the businesses that people buy from instead.

The only people to lose out are those selling as a business and not declaring it and they deserve to lose out because they're breaking the law.

I would have to disagree that the HMRC will raise any more tax from clamping down on eBay sellers.
As the HMRC is a Government agency it is likely to be costly and highly inefficient in collecting taxes.
If people suddenly stop selling on eBay it is debatable whether other business's would take their place,especially if its people reselling tat from car boot sales.
Taxation is a surefire way of killing economic activity.

Flyonthewall

listonosz wrote: »

I would have to disagree that the HMRC will raise any more tax from clamping down on eBay sellers.
As the HMRC is a Government agency it is likely to be costly and highly inefficient in collecting taxes.
If people suddenly stop selling on eBay it is debatable whether other business's would take their place,especially if its people reselling tat from car boot sales.
Taxation is a surefire way of killing economic activity.

They're clearly already sending out letters. The possible tax from years of selling of even 10% of people they're targeting could possibly outweigh costs. All depends on how many start paying and how well they do and how much they're paying out. At the moment it's only letters so costs won't be that high, it's not like they're making personal house calls, and a lot of people owe a lot of taxes.

It's not debatable at all. A percentage will be going to private sellers, as it already does, but the rest will be going to a business seller somewhere because it has to go somewhere unless people just don't buy the item which is highly unlikely and the only choices are private or business.

Unless by other businesses you mean new businesses taking the other sellers place? In which case there doesn't have to be new businesses, plenty already exist.

Those buying "tat", as you put it, from carboots, if they stopped other buyers would buy the items instead either for personal or business or the carboot seller may well end up listing the item online themselves. Might be someone different buying, but it wouldn't really change anything as things are sold in different ways anyway.

It wouldn't kill the economy at all. How can it when the exact same items would still be being sold?

The economy can cope with the possibility of a few less items being sold on ebay lol. How do you think we managed before ebay?

As it stands they're not getting tax from many who, by law, should be paying and they are losing out massively because of it while others benefit. So why should people get to break the law and profit from it? What do you suggest HMRC do?

listonosz

Flyonthewall wrote: »

They're clearly already sending out letters. The possible tax from years of selling of even 10% of people they're targeting could possibly outweigh costs. All depends on how many start paying and how well they do and how much they're paying out. At the moment it's only letters so costs won't be that high, it's not like they're making personal house calls, and a lot of people owe a lot of taxes.

It's not debatable at all. A percentage will be going to private sellers, as it already does, but the rest will be going to a business seller somewhere because it has to go somewhere unless people just don't buy the item which is highly unlikely and the only choices are private or business.

Unless by other businesses you mean new businesses taking the other sellers place? In which case there doesn't have to be new businesses, plenty already exist.

Those buying "tat", as you put it, from carboots, if they stopped other buyers would buy the items instead either for personal or business or the carboot seller may well end up listing the item online themselves. Might be someone different buying, but it wouldn't really change anything as things are sold in different ways anyway.

It wouldn't kill the economy at all. How can it when the exact same items would still be being sold?

The economy can cope with the possibility of a few less items being sold on ebay lol. How do you think we managed before ebay?

As it stands they're not getting tax from many who, by law, should be paying and they are losing out massively because of it while others benefit. So why should people get to break the law and profit from it? What do you suggest HMRC do?

Please don't quote me out of context.
I never said that clamping down on eBayer's would kill the economy.
I said that taxation is a surefire way of killing economic activity,which most economists would agree with.
I really don't have a clue what the unintended consequences will be after this crackdown.

soolin

It is an interesting point of view that it is better to allow businesses to get away with tax rather than to spend money chasing them. At what level is it OK to stop chasing then? Is a turnover of £5000 OK, what about £10,000 ? I use turnover as that is all HMRC will know- online platforms like ebay and Amazon return these figures to HMRC when asked, but of course only give the info they have- which is actual amounts taken. It really doesn't cost a great deal anyway, HMRC have the basic figures for money taken, they only need to ask a business to provide accounts, and if that business is tardy in providing them HMRC just levy tax on the whole lot regardless of expenses.

It is also worth noting that a lot of what HMRC do is designed to worry other people into declaring before they are caught. So for every post on here, or for every time someone down the pub mentions they have been caught by HMRC (or DWP) it is very possible another couple of people will then declare their own businesses.

I think the system should be the same for everyone- if you have earned income it needs to be declared, regardless of the amount and it is up to the business to mitigate the tax due by providing basic accounts showing the allowed expenses.

This thread makes me suspect that there may be a number of very worried unregistered businesses who truly believe that as they have got away with it for so long they are safe.

Flyonthewall

listonosz wrote: »

Please don't quote me out of context.
I never said that clamping down on eBayer's would kill the economy.
I said that taxation is a surefire way of killing economic activity,which most economists would agree with.
I really don't have a clue what the unintended consequences will be after this crackdown.

How did I quote you out of context??? I quoted your entire post!

The result of taxing more people/ebayers would be as I said in my post, having no effect on economic activity.

Items would still be being made, items would still be being sold, people would still have jobs sending them items (i.e. couriers and Royal Mail) and platforms (e.g. ebay) would still be there to sell them on.

Some people may stop selling when they realise they have to pay tax, others won't. For some that won't stop they may well build up their business more, buy and sell more, send more, even employ people.

Btw, "Economic Activity Definition: The production, distribution, and consumption of commodities." If you killed the activity you're basically killing the economy as the definition is "economy (meaning aggregated production, consumption, savings, and investment) and issues affecting it, including unemployment of resources (labor, capital, and land), inflation, economic growth, and the public policies that address these issues (monetary, fiscal, and other policies)."

You kill production, distribution and consumption (economic activity) it massively affects unemployment of resources, savings, growth etc. (the economy). So regardless of exact terms you're basically saying the same thing and either way you're wrong for the reasons mentioned before.

I'm also rather confused by your last line. You keep arguing that it will kill economic activity, which obviously if it did would be unintended as it would be a very stupid thing to intend to do. Yet you say "I really don't have a clue what the unintended consequences will be after this crackdown."Well in your opinion that would be the consequences and by saying you don't know you've killed your own argument.

motorguy

Stuck_1 wrote: »

These clowns haven't got a clue what there going after, if you sell an item
on e-bay for £10 you've got - around 13% ebay / paypal = £1.30 + £3.90 recorded to RM + Postage/Petrol costs, say 25p your left with £4.55.
how much of that do these clowns think are profit? 10%.
so were now talking 45p & they want tax you what % on that profit?

How do HMRC know if you're selling items at £10, making £9.90 profit and selling a million a year, or selling items at £10, making 10p profit and selling 10 a month.

Man up and submit accounts like the rest of us have to.

motorguy

Stuck_1 wrote: »

They didn't!

as someone said earlier in the thread this will have the reverse effect & hmrc will be worse of if they drive away small internet sellers, i don't think they realise how much turnover these small sellers combined give to Royal Mail (& sub let Post Offices) , Royal Mail profits will fall on their @rse, which in turn would bring staff cuts ect, but on the plus side at least you will get served quicker at the PO.

If you are selling to make profit, you need to submit accounts just like the rest of us, end of.

Far too many people neither fulfilling their obligations to HMRC nor to their customers and hiding behind the notion that its "just a hobby" or "its not really a business".

Not for you to decide.