4 ms·
> No, it would be more like your company going to France, selling the French guy the game, and then coming back to the US. The burden of tax compliance is place
by d1zzy 7y ago
> No, it would be more like your company going to France, selling the French guy the game, and then coming back to the US. The burden of tax compliance is placed on you, the seller, because you are the one profiting from the activity and therefore morally (and legally) should shoulder the burden.
I don't think that's as clear as you try to make it be. Both parties (seller and buyer) are doing something that is in their best interest, one is acquiring a product/service for some money, the other is selling it for the money. In both cases it serves their interests, both have a moral responsibility in regards to the exchange. And you see this reflected in tax laws too where both companies and consumers pay taxes relevant to a transaction.
- gamblor956 7y agoI'm an international tax lawyer dude... The seller is making money. That's what matters from a moral and legal perspective. Everywhere. It doesn't matter that the buyer is possibly also getting a benefit. And you see this reflected in tax laws too where both companies and consumers pay taxes relevant to a transaction. Please list even one location where both the buyer and the seller pays the transaction tax. Here's a hint: there isn't one. Either the buyer pays, or the seller pays. However, for nearly every transaction tax, the seller collects the tax on behalf of the government and remits that amount to the appropriate tax authority. (In Hawaii and Australia, the seller actually pays the tax--GET or GST, respectively-- but is permitted to pass along the tax to the customer as a separate line item on the invoice. In Hawaii, the seller then owes more tax for the additional charge to the customer.) Note also: withholding taxes on cross-border payments are not transaction taxes. They're income taxes, which is a very different thing.