Polish VAT scam

wrote

It is true. If you pay 100 (eg by cash) for goods, then that is more expensive than paying 97.50 (eg by credit card) for the same goods.

The fact that you would also pay 2.50 for a financial service in the latter case is irrelevant to the price paid for the goods - that is *not* for the goods!

"tim" wrote

You think that paying 100 for the goods and 0 "charge", means that you are

Apparantly not clear enough.

The 2.5% handling charge doesn't come from anywhere. The shops concerned conjured the 2.5% figure out of the air - they could have picked 1%, or 5%, as far as I can see. They've decided that they can get away with taking that 2.5% from the cost of the goods that they declare to the government (customs and excise or the vatman or whoever) as a `handling charge` and only pay vat to the government on the remainder. They don't do it on cash. This is why its the same cost, no more expensive, a lack of financial difference, or however else you want to put it, whether you pay by cash or credit card.

That £2.50 you pay the financial service saves you a cool £2.50 off the price paid to Tescos (or whoever) though, so it's money well spent!

In message , Alex writes

Oh, sufficiently I can assure you...

YOUVE GOT IT!!!

Er thanks again. Just what were you hoping to add to the discussion?

In message , Alex writes

No, the FinServ co is owned by Tesco too.

So they are above the law?

That's not what I said.

Let's take another example -

Suppose you had been one of the people coming back from the continent with some booze - for personal consumption only - and HMC&E had confiscated your car, later crushed it, and left you at the port to make your own way back home without your method of transport. AIUI, this happened to a number of people even though it was later found that HMC&E acted illegally.

Which would you prefer :-

(a) pay the duty at the time according to HMC&E rules, get home safely in your own car & then later (when HMC&E shown to be wrong) reclaim the duty you paid (with interest!); or

(b) refuse to pay the duty, cite the law, but still have your booze confiscated & car impounded+crushed - & have to walk home / hitch? !!

But that isn't the situation in this case.

I'm not risking any 'car crushing' if I decide to obey the law rather than HMC&E rules. If I decide to write a rule that says HMC&E should pay me something that the law says they shouldn't would you argue that they should pay me that amount just in case I go and smash their windows or something?

explicitly)

What's stopping the retailers from imposing a "cash handling charge" or "cheque handling charge" of the same amount?

wrote

That isn't the same thing at all, because in your scenario HMC&E wouldn't agree with your treatment (your unilateral new rule).

What I was talking about was following their rules, ie BOTH sides are using the same rules. They can hardly disagree with their own rules, now can they!

wrote

Probably nothing - but wouldn't that charge be subject to (standard-rate) VAT?

It's exactly the same:-

Present case, HMC&E invent a rule that I (and the law) doesn't agree with.

My analogue case, I invent a rule that HMC&E don't agree with (and the law probably doesn't either).

Where's the difference?

The difference is that I've been talking about :-

... *not* the "present case" that you outlined above.

In message , Tim writes

Normal 'Bank Charges' are exempt from VAT but because the banks cant charge explicitly per supermarket customer transaction it cant be passed in the same way that card merchant fees can.

So you've just been saying that you agree with the HMC&E and that's all!

wrote

Close, but I wouldn't quite go that far - I said it ought to be *safe* to "go along with" their rules ...