That makes sense, and I see what you mean as we are benefiting from lower prices I guess. However, that doesn't mean Apple aren't benefiting too - of course they are! Otherwise they wouldn't go through all the effort to find these loopholes and take advantage of them. If Apple had their prices set higher, then they wouldn't be selling as much content as they are.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
App Store and iTunes Prices in UK May Increase Up to 20%
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That makes sense, and I see what you mean as we are benefiting from lower prices I guess. However, that doesn't mean Apple aren't benefiting too - of course they are! Otherwise they wouldn't go through all the effort to find these loopholes and take advantage of them. If Apple had their prices set higher, then they wouldn't be selling as much content as they are.
If politicians wanted to end the ability for companies to avoid taxes... they would change the laws. Obviously the politicians are just fine with things as they are.
----------
Ask 100 people what the definition of what they believe 'common good' happens to be and you're likely to get 100 different answers.
I was under the impression that for all the improvements, they've dropped logicnode, making it nowhere near as powerful as the previous version if you want to use additional systems for software synths. You could always rewire them from Reaper into Logic X and use Reamote to achieve the same thing but that's nowhere near as convenient as simply running logic node on a networked Mac as previous.
I wish our gas tax was only 23cents we pay 46.4cents, but I guess we have hardly any toll roads in Ohio to make that diffrence.
Sales tax is always up to the consumer to pay. You shoud really be protesting the extortion-like VAT system. Talk about ridicuous.
The ironic thing is that David Cameron himself will now be forced to pay... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/100005761/david-cameron-im-a-mac/
The thing is, as far as I know, Apple's refusal to offer zero VAT invoices (Intra-Community acquisition) is illegal. That's the problem.
What their terms of use state is irrelevant. If you want a zero VAT invoice, as a company, the seller is obliged to give you one (or refuse sale). In other words you should be able, as a business, to buy a 0,99 app for 0,86 (= excl the 15% Lux. VAT).
This is a serious issue for more expensive applications like Final Cut and Aperture that are only sold through the app store (and used by professionals who can claim a VAT deduction).
I tried getting a zero VAT invoice from Apple once. I just gave up. I reported them to the EU and the Belgian ministry of Finance. Nothing will come of that but it's the idea that counts.
I can imagine that Apple is an insanely frustrating company to deal with, even for governments. They bend rules or plain ignore them.
This week Apple, in Belgium, finally gave in to the 2 year warranty law. They were still supplying their goods with a 1 year factory warranty instead of the legally required 2 year.
Another example; Apple has a few partner networks for the iPhone. They block LTE on non-partner networks. Stating, blatantly lied, "technical reasons". Result: the government is now working on a law to unblock LTE on iPhones for every network. If the device is technically able to connect, it should connect, without any artificial restrictions.
I think you'll find thats simply not true. The terms of sale are crucial. If the terms of sale state that the sale is for private use and not for business use, then the criteria for reverse charging the VAT have not been met, regardless of whether the end user is a VAT registered business or not (businesses can buy things for non-business purposes too).
I quote from HMRC notice 741a:
Also:
Additionally, if your business is a limited company, then there is no way for Apple to make a direct B2B supply with your company as iTunes accounts are for individuals, not corporations.
So in short, Apple are satisfied that their transactions are not B2B supplies because a) iTunes accounts belong to individuals, not businesses and b) their terms of sale explicitly state that the supplies are not received for business purposes.
From the terms:
I realise this is at odds with the principle of selling software that is specifically aimed at commercial usage, but there you go.
So on the plus side, the new rules from January 2015 will mean that Apple will be charging UK (or Belgian in your case) VAT on their "B2C" supplies. This means, if you're legitimately buying something from Apple for business purposes and you can get a VAT invoice from them, then you should be able to reclaim the VAT.
Belgian rules might be slightly different to the UK but in the UK the invoice normally needs to be in the name of the VAT registered entity. This will still mean if your operating as a UK limited company that you won't be able to reclaim the VAT as the invoice will not be in the company name.
Last edited:
Then how would business users be able to buy programs aimed at professionals such as Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro and Aperture if they are only available from the Mac App Store?
Probably why they have the Volume Purchase Programme (VPP) for Business.
Then how would business users be able to buy programs aimed at professionals such as Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro and Aperture if they are only available from the Mac App Store?
Probably why they have the Volume Purchase Programme (VPP) for Business.
And you'll probably find its terms are completely different.
How did they get those savings? If they earned them they'll have paid income tax, if they inherited them they should pay a huge inheritance tax (I'm against inheritance). I agree that a high threshold before you start paying income tax is good, not sure what that has to do with VAT.
that's actually what I prefer about income tax - it shouldn't treat everyone equally, the rich should pay a high proportion.
They should be getting publically fined large amounts for ignoring laws. End of, it's the ONLY way to make them change, trouble is some governments wouldn't dare do that.
Why a joke? And a commercial to what? For which reasons should I have lied? I cannot speak for your specific situation: if in your situation insurance companies can and do screw their customers it's most likely because there is not enough competition and they don't care about their reputation. If this is the case you have a more fundamental problem: not enough competition tends to lead to bad consumer experience in basically all industries.
Be good to your word and move on then. Ensuring VAT is collected on online purchases is a sensible and necessary move.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple knows that they're playing with fire if they increase their prices which many in the US consider too expensive as it is. Wireless carriers are starting to lower their plans (thanks T-Mobile) and other US companies have become more aware of price-sensitive consumers here. Subsidies may even disappear which means Apple would have to list those outrageous unlocked prices instead of those more appealing subsidized prices during their big iPhone announcements. Maybe that would be an incentive to lower their prices by 100-200 dollars.
Last edited:
Wait, did I read this right?
I do not HAVE to exploit a loophole to not pay more than I am legally required to pay. I can legally pay all that I am required to pay and not have exploited a single tax loophole in the process.
I do not HAVE to exploit a loophole to not pay more than I am legally required to pay. I can legally pay all that I am required to pay and not have exploited a single tax loophole in the process.
Yes, that's true. It's the same argument for sales taxes on internet sales in the U.S., that it's unfair to local businesses that are collecting the tax on equivalent sales. U.K. has decided to impose tax increase to level playing field. In the U.S., we're not there yet (hard for politicians to agree to tax increase, even if it is to make the system "fairer")
Consumers pay VAT not corporations Small minds do not understand
You are a fool corporations are not going to pay this tax you the consumer will.
You are a fool corporations are not going to pay this tax you the consumer will.
Don't let the door hit your behind on the way out will you
No, the corporations will pay it, my links refer to corporation tax avoidance, NOT VAT avoidance.
They have mostly managed to dodge paying almost any tax at all. Thankfully not for much longer.
Sadly, there are all sorts of circumstances in which HMRC will not allow a person or company register for VAT. It would save me a lot of money if I could. On the other hand, it saves me a lot of paperwork.