|
 |
| | | Author: | normann1974  | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2023 16:41 | | Subject: | Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 374 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| A user just left me negative feedback because I left them negative feedback.
This was the second time this user ordered from me and immediately demanded to
get an invoice without VAT, which I do not offer because I sell from EU to the
EU and I'm an VAT/OSS registered company. BrickLink automatically handles
these orders with VAT. So I had to cancel both orders. The first time, I explained
the situation along with the cancellation and chose not to leave negative feedback
although I had every right to do so.
It is clearly stated in the first paragraph of my store terms that I do not offer
VAT free sales (because other buyers have asked for this also), but this user
claims in the negative feedback that I have contradictory terms. I do not. It
says nowhere that I offer VAT free sales for anyone - no matter if you're
a company or not. It says only the opposite.
I'm not the first one to leave negative feedback on this user, 4 others have
done this in the four years that user has existed, and 5 neutral feedbacks was
left also. So this is apparently a user that use strike back as a mechanism for
anger management.
In conclusion: This negative feedback was both unreasonable and based on orders
not complying with my terms and based on false claims, and it breaks my perfect
record for 100% customer satisfaction (and I also have 100% satisfaction as a
buyer) and this makes me really sad.
Can something be done in this case?
Also for the future, would the correct resolution of this situation have been
to require this user to pay or face an NPB and just ignore the demand of VAT
free sale? I believe in latter case admin would be able to remove the negative
feedback.
/Jan
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | psusaxman2000 | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2023 16:54 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 88 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, normann1974 writes:
| | A user just left me negative feedback because I left them negative feedback.
This was the second time this user ordered from me and immediately demanded to
get an invoice without VAT, which I do not offer because I sell from EU to the
EU and I'm an VAT/OSS registered company. BrickLink automatically handles
these orders with VAT. So I had to cancel both orders. The first time, I explained
the situation along with the cancellation and chose not to leave negative feedback
although I had every right to do so.
It is clearly stated in the first paragraph of my store terms that I do not offer
VAT free sales (because other buyers have asked for this also), but this user
claims in the negative feedback that I have contradictory terms. I do not. It
says nowhere that I offer VAT free sales for anyone - no matter if you're
a company or not. It says only the opposite.
I'm not the first one to leave negative feedback on this user, 4 others have
done this in the four years that user has existed, and 5 neutral feedbacks was
left also. So this is apparently a user that use strike back as a mechanism for
anger management.
In conclusion: This negative feedback was both unreasonable and based on orders
not complying with my terms and based on false claims, and it breaks my perfect
record for 100% customer satisfaction (and I also have 100% satisfaction as a
buyer) and this makes me really sad.
Can something be done in this case?
Also for the future, would the correct resolution of this situation have been
to require this user to pay or face an NPB and just ignore the demand of VAT
free sale? I believe in latter case admin would be able to remove the negative
feedback.
/Jan
|
After the first attempt I would have blocked the buyer if you didn't want
to deal with them again. IMO as you asked, I would have sent an invoice and
then submitted a NPB. This would block the buyer from leaving feedback. Unfortunately
I don't think this qualifies for feedback remove unless you work with the
buyer and both agree to remove it from each other.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2023 17:13 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 81 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | | After the first attempt I would have blocked the buyer if you didn't want
to deal with them again. IMO as you asked, I would have sent an invoice and
then submitted a NPB. This would block the buyer from leaving feedback. Unfortunately
I don't think this qualifies for feedback remove unless you work with the
buyer and both agree to remove it from each other.
|
I believe in giving second chances, so the user was not put on stop list until
now. That is also why I decided not to leave feedback on the first order.
I believe that working it out with this user not impossible. I have explained
in decent terms why I believe that their claims are false and unreasonable, and
I wish them a nice day every time. They, in contrast, they response with outburst
of negative vibes and false claims. Also, I will not accept to remove my negative
feedback, because it's important for other sellers and buyers to know how
this user behaves and have an idea of what's in store beforehand.
/Jan
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2023 16:58 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | |
Also for the future, would the correct resolution of this situation have been
to require this user to pay or face an NPB and just ignore the demand of VAT
free sale? I believe in latter case admin would be able to remove the negative
feedback.
|
Yes, you should have invoiced the order. Then the buyer can choose to pay, and
you can leave NPB if they don't.
If they did it before, maybe you should have stop listed them after the first
time.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2023 17:43 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 91 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | | This was the second time this user ordered from me and immediately demanded to
get an invoice without VAT, which I do not offer because I sell from EU to the
EU and I'm an VAT/OSS registered company.
|
1) Yes, you could handle this without VAT, I do and am VAT/OSS etc.
Simply have a Manual shipping method, uncheck the VAT, invoice.
Done.
| | It is clearly stated in the first paragraph of my store terms that I do not offer
VAT free sales (because other buyers have asked for this also), but this user
claims in the negative feedback that I have contradictory terms.
|
2) This is also a problem.
The last time I read, and in short, in between Pros withing EU, invoices are
supposed to be invoiced without VAT.
What I'm not sure if invoicing without VAT is either mandatory or an option.
I've searched a few times but can't find exact EU (or FR here) law terms
about this.
One thing is sure, as a pro I dislike when sellers refuse non-VAT, sure I'll
pay no problem, but I may not come back, especially when it's easy to set
up (see above) 
Which is a loss for the seller; as a pro I place *decent* orders
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2023 18:12 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 86 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | | 1) Yes, you could handle this without VAT, I do and am VAT/OSS etc.
Simply have a Manual shipping method, uncheck the VAT, invoice.
Done.
|
First of all, this user did not order with a company billing address. It was
a private person's name with an address. No company name, no VAT number.
I would be illegal to sell VAT free to any private person. And for a private
person to demand this would be VAT fraud.
Also, there are government rules for doing VAT free sales, at least in Denmark.
It's required to validate VAT numbers and billing information, and it's
also required to do monthly VAT accounting (instead of every 3-12 months). I
do not want all that extra work.
| | What I'm not sure if invoicing without VAT is either mandatory or an option.
I've searched a few times but can't find exact EU (or FR here) law terms
about this.
|
It's my belief (although I don't know for sure) that this is an option.
BrickLink doesn't seem to support billing anyone without VAT, at least for
my store. So BrickLink's invoices always include VAT. That invoice would
be different from any invoice I would have to send by demand. This may very well
be illegal.
Also, I don't see what the problem is. If you're a company and make a
purchase that includes VAT, you would just get the VAT back when doing VAT accounting.
That's how it works for my business. There's even a field in the VAT
accounting where I inform how much VAT I spent on EU purchases.
/Jan
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2023 18:35 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 80 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, normann1974 writes:
| | | | 1) Yes, you could handle this without VAT, I do and am VAT/OSS etc.
Simply have a Manual shipping method, uncheck the VAT, invoice.
Done.
|
First of all, this user did not order with a company billing address. It was
a private person's name with an address. No company name, no VAT number.
|
You didn't tell us this!
In this case, I'd report the member.
| | | | What I'm not sure if invoicing without VAT is either mandatory or an option.
I've searched a few times but can't find exact EU (or FR here) law terms
about this.
|
It's my belief (although I don't know for sure) that this is an option.
|
Same for me, I don't know if it's an option or not.
Last time I checked an EU rule it was something like "In between pros, no
VAT", and it wasn't written it was optional (or not).
| | Also, I don't see what the problem is.
|
That a pro can chose when to pay his VAT (up to some date limits).
I often buy for projects, if I had to pay VAT when buying, I would pay an extra
20% while I'm not even paid for the project (because pros also)...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2023 19:05 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
In this case, I'd report the member.
|
+1
| | […]
Same for me, I don't know if it's an option or not.
|
AFAICT, many businesses don’t do a VAT-free transaction without being asked.
Especially when they are mainly B2C / retail.
(Often, just asking for a (real) invoice (with VAT) make them grumpy.)
What I don’t know is if it’s mandatory or optional when the buyer does request
it.
I think there’s also a difference between domestic and intra-EU sales.
*sigh* There’s a lot of things that are not in laws but are in “good practices”
and considered laws (“it’s how it’s done” — “but it’s the 21st century and we
have computers now!?” — “it’s how it’s done”).
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2023 19:20 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Feedback, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
In this case, I'd report the member.
|
+1
| | […]
Same for me, I don't know if it's an option or not.
|
AFAICT, many businesses don’t do a VAT-free transaction without being asked.
Especially when they are mainly B2C / retail.
(Often, just asking for a (real) invoice (with VAT) make them grumpy.)
What I don’t know is if it’s mandatory or optional when the buyer does request
it.
I think there’s also a difference between domestic and intra-EU sales.
*sigh* There’s a lot of things that are not in laws but are in “good practices”
and considered laws (“it’s how it’s done” — “but it’s the 21st century and we
have computers now!?” — “it’s how it’s done”).
|
Slippery slope, here is an official page about it:
https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/exemptions-right-deduct_en
But the directive uses the word Shall all the time, not the word must...
And also sates that it doesn't apply for small business scheme or margin/second
hand scheme.
But returning to Jan, do you have Domestic VAT enabled apart from the other setting
about Distance Selling (OSS) in your Bricklink management page?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2023 19:36 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | | But returning to Jan, do you have Domestic VAT enabled apart from the other setting
about Distance Selling (OSS) in your Bricklink management page?
|
Yes, I am a VAT/OSS registered small business which I'm required to both
by law and by BrickLink because of my yearly turnover.
/Jan
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | peregrinator | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2023 07:58 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, Stellar writes:
| | But the directive uses the word Shall all the time, not the word must...
|
Traditionally in English, where laws and regulations are concerned, "shall"
is used to express an obligation - it does mean "must". I would check
the other EU procedural languages to see whether they express the same obligation.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2023 08:50 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, peregrinator writes:
| | In Feedback, Stellar writes:
| | But the directive uses the word Shall all the time, not the word must...
|
Traditionally in English, where laws and regulations are concerned, "shall"
is used to express an obligation - it does mean "must". I would check
the other EU procedural languages to see whether they express the same obligation.
|
“
The French version of article 138-1 says “Les États membres exonèrent…”: simple
present, not “doivent exonérer,” but it’s still an obligation.
(“Los Estados miembros eximirán…” in Spanish  )
”
— https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1433609
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2023 08:58 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, peregrinator writes:
| | In Feedback, Stellar writes:
| | But the directive uses the word Shall all the time, not the word must...
|
Traditionally in English, where laws and regulations are concerned, "shall"
is used to express an obligation - it does mean "must". I would check
the other EU procedural languages to see whether they express the same obligation.
|
Yes, and at least in speech is often replaced by "will". There are so
many similar words .... you must, you will, you shall, you have to .... maybe
so parents can have a bit of variety when speaking to their children.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2023 09:15 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
Yes, and at least in speech is often replaced by "will".
|
I was taught that, “properly,” shall/will and should/would should be “swapped”
for the first persons (I & we).
I quickly realized that no one does that, or that it’s hidden by the use of contractions
Oh, it’s explained there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will
| | There are so
many similar words .... you must, you will, you shall, you have to .... maybe
so parents can have a bit of variety when speaking to their children.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2023 09:34 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Feedback, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
Yes, and at least in speech is often replaced by "will".
|
I was taught that, “properly,” shall/will and should/would should be “swapped”
for the first persons (I & we).
I quickly realized that no one does that, or that it’s hidden by the use of contractions
Oh, it’s explained there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will
|
I had never heard of that. Although of course, as a native English speaker, I
learnt much more grammar through speech rather than text books. Whereas learning
a foreign language, you often first go to a text book and these can often be
overly formal. I remember learning tenses in French and needing to remember the
names of them, when I had no clue what the names of the equivalent tenses were
in English even though I could use them without thinking.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2023 10:44 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
I had never heard of that. Although of course, as a native English speaker, I
learnt much more grammar through speech rather than text books. Whereas learning
a foreign language, you often first go to a text book and these can often be
overly formal. I remember learning tenses in French and needing to remember the
names of them, when I had no clue what the names of the equivalent tenses were
in English even though I could use them without thinking.
|
We, French, learn grammar at an early age.
(Or rather, we’re taught grammar at an early age. I’m not sure it’s very
efficient: as French is overly complicated, in primary school, 37% of the time
is spent on teaching “reading & writing.” The average is 22% in OECD countries.
And the results are so good that “we need to spend more time on the 3 Rs¹!” is
a constant refrain.)
And even though the methods to learn foreign languages have changed and are more
“immersive” and less “bookish” than before, we still “need” to learn how to translate
the French tense system to the foreign system.
And, actually², the French and English systems are very similar (thanks to the
Normans?), it’s just that you got rid of most conjugations
———
¹ Reading, wRitting and aRithmetic.
² And fortunately for me: I can thus sound more learned because my grammar is
not too bad and I use longer words (because Latin-based)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | peregrinator | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2023 11:09 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, SylvainLS writes:
| | We, French, learn grammar at an early age.
(Or rather, we’re taught grammar at an early age. I’m not sure it’s very
efficient: as French is overly complicated
|
Compared to English???
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2023 11:38 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, peregrinator writes:
| | In Feedback, SylvainLS writes:
| | We, French, learn grammar at an early age.
(Or rather, we’re taught grammar at an early age. I’m not sure it’s very
efficient: as French is overly complicated
|
Compared to English???
|
Well, French people who don’t know English think that English is very simple.
Among other advantages: almost no conjugations (“only” -s, -ed), no agreements
(adjectives and most pronouns are invariable).
Especially true for those who confuse English with Globish and were traumatised
by the past participle agreement rules in French.
But, yeah, when you know English, you know it’s complicated _too_
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2023 15:26 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | | Traditionally in English, where laws and regulations are concerned, "shall"
is used to express an obligation - it does mean "must". I would check
the other EU procedural languages to see whether they express the same obligation.
|
Just to make it LEGO related, ...
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2023 15:30 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Traditionally in English, where laws and regulations are concerned, "shall"
is used to express an obligation - it does mean "must". I would check
the other EU procedural languages to see whether they express the same obligation.
|
Just to make it LEGO related, ...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | calebfishn | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2023 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| There is nothing in the english language to suggest that "shall" implies
an optional choice of action. In fact it is the opposite. The fact that many
english speakers get this wrong, and that schools don't teach the grammar
any more doesn't change this.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2023 15:36 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, calebfishn writes:
| | There is nothing in the english language to suggest that "shall" implies
an optional choice of action.
|
Apparently, there’s lawyers that would beg to differ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will#Legal_and_technical_use
| | In fact it is the opposite. The fact that many
english speakers get this wrong, and that schools don't teach the grammar
any more doesn't change this.
|
Linguistically, when “many X speakers” get something one way, then it’s just
a way, a variant, different, maybe minoritary way, but not a wrong way
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2023 20:17 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | | | | […]
Same for me, I don't know if it's an option or not.
|
AFAICT, many businesses don’t do a VAT-free transaction without being asked.
Especially when they are mainly B2C / retail.
(Often, just asking for a (real) invoice (with VAT) make them grumpy.)
What I don’t know is if it’s mandatory or optional when the buyer does request
it.
|
As you're a pro at this game, i'd be happy if you could find us some
official doc about this!
I'm wondering for years...
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 07:48 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
As you're a pro at this game,
|
Flattery will get you everywhere… or is it nowhere?
Remember: I’m not an accountant, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not talking for BL or
LEGO, I’m not a seller, I may be a cat.
| | i'd be happy if you could find us some
official doc about this!
I'm wondering for years...
|
TL;DR: Apparently, we shouldn’t ask these questions because these situations
shouldn’t happen… except they do.
Intra-community
What the texts say:
1. Intra-community supplies are VAT-exempt. A “supply” is when the buyer is
VAT-registered in their country and they buy from another country in EU, and
they are buying for their business (so, for direct resale or to transform and
sell).
That means a seller shouldn’t collect VAT in this case.
(Article 138-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0112
About “shall”: Notice that directives say “Member States shall …,” because the
directives are transcribed into local laws. “Transcribe” means there’s some
leeway. It’s all diplomacy, not RFCs )
2. Intra-community acquisitions can be taxed. This is the other side of the
sale, from the buyer’s PoV. That means the buyer may have to pay VAT in their
country for purchases made out of their country (“autoliquidation”).
Conclusion: The seller doesn’t collect VAT but the buyer pays VAT in/to their
own country.
Now, the implementation.
When are we “in this case”? How does the seller know “this case” applies?
Here again, the “help pages” I found (like this one https://www.impots.gouv.fr/professionnel/achatvente-de-biens
) only give the list of conditions that define the case.
But the conditions are very simple: seller and buyer are in different countries,
both VAT-registered in their countries, goods are transported, buyer is buying
for their business.
Part of it is very simple to know/check, even on BL.
But the last part (buying for their business) depends on the buyer… so “buyer
has to tell the seller” which leads us back to “buyer has to request.”
So, does the seller has to believe the buyer / has to accept the request? I
don’t know.
Now, there’s also the matter of paperwork.
In France, for the seller or the buyer, there’s no substantial difference
between a “VATed” transaction and a VAT-exempt one: same info to collect and
transmit. (Having to put the buyer’s VAT ID on the invoice isn’t really a burden.
Your invoices should already have more info than BL orders.)
Apparently, in Denmark, Jan would have to change his VAT-registration to be able
to fill the correct paperwork.
Does that mean Jan HAS to change his VAT-registration because he should sell
VAT-exempt?
Lastly, there’s the issue of the country that collects the VAT and its amount
(different rates!). Clearly, as the buyer should autoliquidate, it’s the buyer’s
country that should get the VAT, at its rate.
If the sale is not treated as B2B, there’s two possibilities:
a. The seller applies the buyer’s rate (“distance selling”/OSS scheme) and remitts
to the buyer’s country. Same end results as what would happen in B2B.
b. The seller applies their rate and remitt to their own country. Wrong country,
wrong rate. Buyer can’t deduct VAT paid to another country, they need to ask
for a refund, if possible.
But then, how often does it happen that a seller is VAT registered but sells
less than €10,000 in EU?
Domestic sales
(I only looked for France.)
Autoliquidation (which is what happens when you buy “tax-exempt”) is only authorized
for “BTP” (public buildings and works sector), electronic communication services,
and a few very specific goods and services (gas & electricity, some waste materials).
(I genuinely thought you could do that in more cases… but apparently not.)
So, if you are in France and buy something in France in B2B, you pay VAT to the
seller (like B2C) and you deduct it afterward.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 10:06 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| OK then, as I understand it:
1) Transactions in between pros and different EU countries with VAT-ID and subject
to VAT (etc) should be invoiced VAT-exempt.
2) It's "just" an EU law, it may not be implemented depending the
country of the seller or the buyer.
3) Even if implemented, it's probably not legally enforced, especially for
those small businesses amounts we're talking about...
Much more, the seller can simply refuse to sell to you, B2B, because we us pros
aren't protected like Customers are 
In Feedback, SylvainLS writes:
[a lot]
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 10:45 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
2) It's "just" an EU law, it may not be implemented depending the
country of the seller or the buyer.
|
No, no. Directives have to be implemented.
But they are frameworks, so:
1. Things may vary, like VAT rates, lists of what gets a lowered rate, etc.
But the variations are also limited inside the frame: a country can’t have a
1% VAT rate for everything.
2. They are worded as such, so they may be confusing / look fuzzy. They are
worded in a way that says what the state must do with their local laws, not how
the local laws should be written.
Here, the article 138-1 says “Member States shall exempt the supply,” not “supply
is exempt.” But the local laws say “supply is exempt.”
Also, Stellar said “But the directive uses the word Shall all the time, not the
word must…” so I made a reference to the RFCs that must use MUST ( https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119
).
But, actually, shall is the legal & formal way to state an obligation. The French
version of article 138-1 says “Les États membres exonèrent…”: simple present,
not “doivent exonérer,” but it’s still an obligation.
(“Los Estados miembros eximirán…” in Spanish )
So that part of the directive is an obligation: intra-community B2B sales are
exempted of VAT. Period.
(But your other points are correct.)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 10:50 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, SylvainLS writes:
| | So that part of the directive is an obligation: intra-community B2B sales are
exempted of VAT. Period.
|
Ah c'est plus clair (et ce que je supposais), merci !
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 10:57 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Feedback, SylvainLS writes:
| | So that part of the directive is an obligation: intra-community B2B sales are
exempted of VAT. Period.
|
Ah c'est plus clair (et ce que je supposais), merci !
|
Ouais, j’aurais dû dire ça et seulement ça dès le début… mais sans explication
ni argument, moi-même je n’y aurais pas cru
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2023 06:46 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Feedback, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
2) It's "just" an EU law, it may not be implemented depending the
country of the seller or the buyer.
|
No, no. Directives have to be implemented.
But they are frameworks, so:
1. Things may vary, like VAT rates, lists of what gets a lowered rate, etc.
But the variations are also limited inside the frame: a country can’t have a
1% VAT rate for everything.
2. They are worded as such, so they may be confusing / look fuzzy. They are
worded in a way that says what the state must do with their local laws, not how
the local laws should be written.
Here, the article 138-1 says “Member States shall exempt the supply,” not “supply
is exempt.” But the local laws say “supply is exempt.”
Also, Stellar said “But the directive uses the word Shall all the time, not the
word must…” so I made a reference to the RFCs that must use MUST ( https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119
).
But, actually, shall is the legal & formal way to state an obligation. The French
version of article 138-1 says “Les États membres exonèrent…”: simple present,
not “doivent exonérer,” but it’s still an obligation.
(“Los Estados miembros eximirán…” in Spanish )
So that part of the directive is an obligation: intra-community B2B sales are
exempted of VAT. Period.
(But your other points are correct.)
|
Thanks Sylvain!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 12:15 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 12:16 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | | Apparently, in Denmark, Jan would have to change his VAT-registration to be able
to fill the correct paperwork.
Does that mean Jan HAS to change his VAT-registration because he should sell
VAT-exempt?
|
Let me start by stating: My apologies if the reader does not like the use of
irony. Irony may be found below.
Serious things first:
Here's a very long document describing all the work needed for B2B as a Danish/EU
company.
https://skat.dk/en-us/businesses/vat/vat-on-international-trade/trading-with-eu-countries/sale-of-goods-and-services-in-the-eu
Oh, please do read the "Documentation requirements for EU trade" section.
There were things in there that makes things even more complicated. My honest
guess is that I would have to hire a lawyer just to ensure that I did things
legally. That would definitely ruin my business immediately because all my time
would be spent on paperwork and implementing all this. No time for doing sales
(you will understand when you read below).
From what I can read, it doesn't really say much about VAT on goods, especially
whether or not you can choose to invoice with VAT. On services though, the
wording is "... where you do not have to charge Danish VAT ..." making
it sound like it's your own choice in that case.
All these rules and extra work is really not good for very small hobby businesses
like mine where time is very limited and I'm primarily having the store to
supplement two other jobs that don't pay out a full month's pay to live
off of. It's a very limited spare time project.
I believe the page doesn't mention this, but it's also required to do
VAT accounting for EU sales every freakin' month, i.e. at least tripling
the work I'm doing today. If you fail to oblige with any of the rules or
deadline, you VAT-free sale priveleges will be revoked. In that case, I would
have no choice but to charge VAT for B2B afterwards, so I guess it must be kind
of optional ...?
So all this is why my terms state (and have done for some years now) that I do
not offer VAT-free sales to companies and if you do order as a company, I will
treat you behind the screen as a private individual and be charged VAT. In other
words: If you want B2B sales, go somewhere else, and if you're a private
individual demanding VAT free sales, I will cancel your order and expect you
to understand that, because you did read my terms beforehand (or at least just
the first paragraph highlighted in bold), right? Very simple. Then I should think
everyone would be happy or at least not angry. But no ...
But people are getting angry. In another part of this thread, there's a long
rant on how my choice not to sell to businesses apparently is a choice I have
made to make myself better than other people and that my choice of only selling
to private individuals is a choice that I should not be allowed to do (and I
would think that being the judge of that would at least require that you would
think of yourself better than others, but I digress). I will not dignify myself
with
an answer to this (because I'm better than everyone else, remember?), and
I honestly do not understand how someone would want to spend their time on putting
all that into words.
Closing my business apparently the only solution to not getting people angry.
/Jan
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 14:24 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | | Closing my business apparently the only solution to not getting people angry.
|
That'd be a pity and stupid Jan; we'll appreciate your shop and what
you do for the catalog!
But just 3 quick points:
* You should by EU laws sell B2B VAT-exempted.
* What you should do for this (according to printed laws) and what you can actually
do may be very different (easier), especially while this is mainly for "low"
amounts - you're not selling containers of iPods
* Even if this is a lot of work, that may increase proportionnaly big amounts
of sales, so it may be worth it! Really.
So please weight if it may be worth working a bit more to have bigger (far bigger,
from pros) orders?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 14:46 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | | | | Closing my business apparently the only solution to not getting people angry.
|
That'd be a pity and stupid Jan; we'll appreciate your shop and what
you do for the catalog!
|
Please remember that I warned about possible use of irony. And that warning wasn't
ironic, by the way.
| | But just 3 quick points:
* You should by EU laws sell B2B VAT-exempted.
|
It's not that I don't believe you, but what about this? (I haven't
checked the truth of the claims)
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1433587
| | * Even if this is a lot of work, that may increase proportionnaly big amounts
of sales, so it may be worth it! Really.
|
I disagree. My experience is that only very few (less than 1%) of my customers
are companies and/or ask for VAT free invoices. Most of those few accept that
I don't offer B2B sales. Some of them - as in this case - are actually orders
that seem to come from private individuals.
My experience may very well be the result of customers generally reading at least
some part of my terms/splash, or it may be the result of my pricing and store
capacity and (temporary) order size restrictions. Also, I have all the orders
I need. There's simply not time enough for more.
/Jan
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, normann1974 writes:
| | | | | | Closing my business apparently the only solution to not getting people angry.
|
That'd be a pity and stupid Jan; we'll appreciate your shop and what
you do for the catalog!
|
Please remember that I warned about possible use of irony. And that warning wasn't
ironic, by the way.
|
Frankly, that's good to know!
| | I disagree. My experience is that only very few (less than 1%) of my customers
are companies and/or ask for VAT free invoices. Most of those few accept that
I don't offer B2B sales.
|
Personnaly I simply WILL NOT buy for more than maybe 50€ orders without being
VAT-exempted. Of course buying at your plave will depend your my needs, your
inventory, price, shipping, etc.
| | Also, I have all the orders I need. There's simply not time enough for more.
|
Ah then this I guess is a final argument; you're doing fine. Keep on!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 14:47 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, 1001bricks writes:
| | […]
* What you should do for this (according to printed laws) and what you can actually
do may be very different (easier), especially while this is mainly for "low"
amounts - you're not selling containers of iPods
|
AFAICT after reading the prodided link, Denmark is not asking more than France:
A. Check the VAT ID (there’s links to do that).
B. Prove the goods were shipped abroad / received. That seems complicated but,
as you say, it’s worded like you’re shipping containers. For a few hundreds
Euros, an invoice for the shipping cost should suffice; you can add a pic of
the shipping label; or screen shots of the tracking….
So, the only real hassle seems to have to report each month instead of each trimester
(“reél” vs “réel simplifié” in France).
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Brickwilbo | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 03:43 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Feedback, normann1974 writes:
| | | | 1) Yes, you could handle this without VAT, I do and am VAT/OSS etc.
Simply have a Manual shipping method, uncheck the VAT, invoice.
Done.
|
First of all, this user did not order with a company billing address. It was
a private person's name with an address. No company name, no VAT number.
|
You didn't tell us this!
In this case, I'd report the member.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/problemMember.asp
| |
| | | | What I'm not sure if invoicing without VAT is either mandatory or an option.
I've searched a few times but can't find exact EU (or FR here) law terms
about this.
|
It's my belief (although I don't know for sure) that this is an option.
|
Same for me, I don't know if it's an option or not.
Last time I checked an EU rule it was something like "In between pros, no
VAT", and it wasn't written it was optional (or not).
| | Also, I don't see what the problem is.
|
That a pro can chose when to pay his VAT (up to some date limits).
I often buy for projects, if I had to pay VAT when buying, I would pay an extra
20% while I'm not even paid for the project (because pros also)...
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 06:10 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
|
Already did this yesterday. What happens now?
/Jan
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Oct 11, 2023 09:13 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, normann1974 writes:
| |
Already did this yesterday. What happens now?
/Jan
|
Well, the negative was removed by an administrator, so all in good there.
But what's the road with problem member reports? Will there be an update
there at some point, do I have to do anything?
/Jan
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2023 18:49 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, normann1974 writes:
| | […]
It's my belief (although I don't know for sure) that this is an option.
BrickLink doesn't seem to support billing anyone without VAT, at least for
my store.
|
It does… but only when it’s BL that collects the VAT, so only when it’s “import
VAT.”
IOW: Seller with a VAT number on BL have the option (at checkout) to buy from
a non-EU seller without VAT.
| | So BrickLink's invoices always include VAT. That invoice would
be different from any invoice I would have to send by demand. This may very well
be illegal.
|
Well, BrickLink’s “invoices” for orders aren’t invoices: they don’t have all
the required elements.
| | Also, I don't see what the problem is. If you're a company and make a
purchase that includes VAT, you would just get the VAT back when doing VAT accounting.
That's how it works for my business. There's even a field in the VAT
accounting where I inform how much VAT I spent on EU purchases.
|
The difference is cash flow: the money is still there and you don’t have to wait
the end of the period (year?) to claim it.
Otherwise, you’re right, for accounting, it’s indeed similar: same number of
entries to make / papers to fill, it’s just in a different account / field.
Worse: you have to ask for a VAT-free transaction & invoice and, at the minimum,
that takes time and effort.
Not worth it for a small business without stock or without a big initial investment.
(And even if you start a business and have a big initial investmentthen, there’s
provisions to get quick refunds.)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2023 19:40 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | | Well, BrickLink’s “invoices” for orders aren’t invoices: they don’t have all
the required elements.
|
I know, that's why I'm sending out my own invoices after sales are finalized.
My invoices include the same details but with the extra stuff required by (Danish)
law.
/Jan
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Bieuw | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 07:37 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Feedback, normann1974 writes:
| | […]
It's my belief (although I don't know for sure) that this is an option.
BrickLink doesn't seem to support billing anyone without VAT, at least for
my store.
|
It does… but only when it’s BL that collects the VAT, so only when it’s “import
VAT.”
IOW: Seller with a VAT number on BL have the option (at checkout) to buy from
a non-EU seller without VAT.
| | So BrickLink's invoices always include VAT. That invoice would
be different from any invoice I would have to send by demand. This may very well
be illegal.
|
Well, BrickLink’s “invoices” for orders aren’t invoices: they don’t have all
the required elements.
| | Also, I don't see what the problem is. If you're a company and make a
purchase that includes VAT, you would just get the VAT back when doing VAT accounting.
That's how it works for my business. There's even a field in the VAT
accounting where I inform how much VAT I spent on EU purchases.
|
The difference is cash flow: the money is still there and you don’t have to wait
the end of the period (year?) to claim it.
Otherwise, you’re right, for accounting, it’s indeed similar: same number of
entries to make / papers to fill, it’s just in a different account / field.
|
Yes... IF you are a registered tax paying business in the country you buy from.
Otherwise reclaiming foreign VAT is difficult as far as I know... There will
probably be a threshold, and you need to submit a request at your tax agency
that is then passed on to the country's tax agency and then you have to wait
2+ weeks. It's not for nothing that the 0% system exists...
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 07:54 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, Bieuw writes:
| | […]
| | Otherwise, you’re right, for accounting, it’s indeed similar: same number of
entries to make / papers to fill, it’s just in a different account / field.
|
Yes... IF you are a registered tax paying business in the country you buy from.
|
Or if the seller is using the OSS/distance selling scheme and applied your tax
rate and remitted to your country.
Which I think should happen more often than not.
| | Otherwise reclaiming foreign VAT is difficult as far as I know... There will
probably be a threshold, and you need to submit a request at your tax agency
that is then passed on to the country's tax agency and then you have to wait
2+ weeks.
|
Emphasis on the “+” in “2+ weeks”
| | It's not for nothing that the 0% system exists...
|
Indeed
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Oct 4, 2023 19:46 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | | One thing is sure, as a pro I dislike when sellers refuse non-VAT, sure I'll
pay no problem, but I may not come back, especially when it's easy to set
up (see above)
|
But please note that it's not that simple. I wrote earlier in this thread,
that this comes with extra work for the seller, at least when you're Danish.
You must verify VAT numbers and billing details and do accounting each month.
/Jan
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 10:34 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, normann1974 writes:
| | | | One thing is sure, as a pro I dislike when sellers refuse non-VAT, sure I'll
pay no problem, but I may not come back, especially when it's easy to set
up (see above)
|
But please note that it's not that simple. I wrote earlier in this thread,
that this comes with extra work for the seller, at least when you're Danish.
You must verify VAT numbers and billing details and do accounting each month.
/Jan
|
Yes, it is that simple. It is called 'the cost of doing business'.
It is your choice to sell over the limit for when you are required to become
a VAT payer. And yes, every seller must validate whether the party that is asking
you to deduct VAT is legit.
There is an analogy in a traffic jam for what you are doing. Everyone
is stuck, but every now and then there is someone who thinks that they are better
than others and takes the shoulder to jump the queue.
What you are doing by refusing to deduct VAT for legitimate VAT-registered buyers
is exactly the same - you are jumping the queue. Letting everyone else stand
in the line, because your time is more valuable.
Moreover - you are suggesting that it is no big deal - the buyers can just get
the VAT back when doing their accounting. Why are you not willing to do the right
thing and invoice without VAT in the first place? Oh, yes. Because you
don't want to spend that extra time and effort. You don't see the hypocrisy?
You are also both right and wrong about BL handling VAT automatically. Yes, BL
removes VAT automatically for your buyers that are outside the EU. For sales
within the EU you have to tick a box to remove VAT - see the picture below. You
can manually un-check the boxes. And, no, it is not illegal, as you are trying
to say. We have that feature specifically for this reason. But you will say anything
just to justify yourself.
Why so angry? Because stuff like this makes me angry.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 10:43 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, enig writes:
| | What you are doing by refusing to deduct VAT for legitimate VAT-registered buyers
is exactly the same - you are jumping the queue. Letting everyone else stand
in the line, because your time is more valuable.
|
| | Why so angry? Because stuff like this makes me angry.
|
Nice orders, you must be doing good
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 11:07 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Feedback, enig writes:
| | What you are doing by refusing to deduct VAT for legitimate VAT-registered buyers
is exactly the same - you are jumping the queue. Letting everyone else stand
in the line, because your time is more valuable.
|
| | Why so angry? Because stuff like this makes me angry.
|
Nice orders, you must be doing good
|
Yes, some nice orders sometimes to save my ass, but you don't know the other
half of it 
Normally these nice ones would be split by a page of small orders, but with some
stuff that BL is doing intentionally my sales to private persons within
EU became virtually extinct {crying_emoji}
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 11:12 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, enig writes:
| | […]
Normally these nice ones would be split by a page of small orders, but with some
stuff that BL is doing intentionally my sales to private persons within
EU became virtually extinct {crying_emoji}
|
Margin scheme on second-hand goods?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 11:28 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Feedback, enig writes:
| | […]
Normally these nice ones would be split by a page of small orders, but with some
stuff that BL is doing intentionally my sales to private persons within
EU became virtually extinct {crying_emoji}
|
Margin scheme on second-hand goods?
|
Nah, ever since I became a VAT payer I have been paying full VAT for all the
sales of used parts. There probably is a way to so something about it but, generally
speaking, I am no longer buying used lots to resell anyway.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 14:34 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| Thank you - for that image. It was actually very helpful.
I was not aware that you could actually change VAT on orders through those checkboxes.
My apologies for being so naïve as to think this was only a visual guide to show
the result of whatever decision was made on VAT by BrickLink based on store settings
and buyer/seller locations.
But you can't set or change this for quote requests. When accepted, BrickLink
automatically sends out invoices before sellers get a chance to change anything
VAT related. That doesn't seem very useful at all.
/Jan
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 14:38 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | | But you can't set or change this for quote requests. When accepted, BrickLink
automatically sends out invoices before sellers get a chance to change anything
VAT related. That doesn't seem very useful at all.
|
I'm not sure about quotes, never used them.
For shipping methods you can set a manual one for this case and others, like
orders to leave opened...
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Bieuw | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 07:26 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, normann1974 writes:
| | A user just left me negative feedback because I left them negative feedback.
This was the second time this user ordered from me and immediately demanded to
get an invoice without VAT, which I do not offer because I sell from EU to the
EU and I'm an VAT/OSS registered company. BrickLink automatically handles
these orders with VAT. So I had to cancel both orders. The first time, I explained
the situation along with the cancellation and chose not to leave negative feedback
although I had every right to do so.
It is clearly stated in the first paragraph of my store terms that I do not offer
VAT free sales (because other buyers have asked for this also), but this user
claims in the negative feedback that I have contradictory terms. I do not. It
says nowhere that I offer VAT free sales for anyone - no matter if you're
a company or not. It says only the opposite.
I'm not the first one to leave negative feedback on this user, 4 others have
done this in the four years that user has existed, and 5 neutral feedbacks was
left also. So this is apparently a user that use strike back as a mechanism for
anger management.
In conclusion: This negative feedback was both unreasonable and based on orders
not complying with my terms and based on false claims, and it breaks my perfect
record for 100% customer satisfaction (and I also have 100% satisfaction as a
buyer) and this makes me really sad.
Can something be done in this case?
Also for the future, would the correct resolution of this situation have been
to require this user to pay or face an NPB and just ignore the demand of VAT
free sale? I believe in latter case admin would be able to remove the negative
feedback.
/Jan
|
Aren't you *obligated* to provide 0% VAT invoices though? That's what
the tax agency told me, although their answers are not always 100% reliable.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Oct 5, 2023 07:47 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| | | Aren't you *obligated* to provide 0% VAT invoices though? That's what
the tax agency told me, although their answers are not always 100% reliable.
|
Probably not. LEGO, for example, do not allow businesses to purchase from their
website at ex-VAT prices. They must provide paperwork with the VAT paid shown
but it is the responsibility of the business to reclaim any VAT paid if they
are eligible to do so.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Oct 12, 2023 06:49 | | Subject: | Re: Unreasonable negative feedback | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Feedback | |
|
| In Feedback, yorbrick writes:
| | | | Aren't you *obligated* to provide 0% VAT invoices though? That's what
the tax agency told me, although their answers are not always 100% reliable.
|
Probably not. LEGO, for example, do not allow businesses to purchase from their
website at ex-VAT prices. They must provide paperwork with the VAT paid shown
but it is the responsibility of the business to reclaim any VAT paid if they
are eligible to do so.
|
LEGO does't offer VAT-Free in their shop because they are a registered business
in each country, the invoice they send has the VAT number and address of the
country of the buyer. So it is a common B2B transaction inside the country with
national VAT.
|
|
|
|
|
Denmark
USA, Pennsylvania
United Kingdom, England
France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
Canada, Ontario
Netherlands, Gelderland
Lithuania, Panevėžys