4 ms·

I realize that Twitter threads have no title and so the submitter has to summarize it as best they can, but this headline is just wrong. It’s not clear that VAT

I realize that Twitter threads have no title and so the submitter has to summarize it as best they can, but this headline is just wrong. It’s not clear that VAT is even owed for GitHub sponsorships because it’s not a payment for goods/services, and even if it is, Microsoft isn’t “evading tax” that they owe. Something like “Microsoft avoids responsibility for calculating GitHub sponsorship VAT” would be better.

dustinmoris 6y ago
Disagree very strongly. Microsoft actively invites the user to offer something in return for sponsorship. They have features built into their sponsorship program to encourage that like the tiers and also documentation and examples on GitHub owned properties demonstrate examples of doing exactly that. Therefore Microsoft actively wants you or at least strongly suggests that this is what the user should do whilst at the same time making it impossible for the user to comply with national VAT laws because they withhold you the information and don't allow you to capture that information yourself and don't invoice correctly which is also done by Microsoft automatically. Therefore Microsoft is actively evading VAT and actively pushing their own customers to evade VAT which is a double offence IMHO.
iso1210 6y ago
But it is payment for services -- access to the videos is for sponsors only, just like OnlyFans. Microsoft are arguably acting like Uber, and arguing that they person being sponsored is responsible for the VAT collection. On the other hand they are specifying neither the price, nor what the service is, so perhaps they're more like ebay and amazon. Unlike OnlyFans and Uber, Microsoft isn't a 'disrupter' company that can take the risk, it's an established company in most countries. Uber in the UK, and OnlyFans, and AnyAnswers, are all facing VAT charges. I'm sure other countries are doing the same (and of course in the UK we're about to get an online business tax for some regressive populist reason) https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/business-tax/uber-faces-ps15bn-vat-crisis https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/business-tax/uber-faces-... > As with many VAT issues, including the OnlyFans and Any Answers Ltd cases, it comes down to the simple question: “Who is supplying what and to whom?” > Is Uber acting as an agent for the drivers, putting work their way? If Uber is based in the UK, this agency commission will be standard rated for VAT. > If Uber is supplying passenger transport in the UK, rather than the self-employed driver, the gross fare paid by the passenger to Uber is standard rated. The place of supply for passenger transport is where the journey takes place. Of course it's even more complex with github as the customers aren't all in the UK (almost everyone paying for an Uber in the UK is in the UK - not sure how cross border journeys work in Ireland, and I guess you could engage an uber to take you cross channel too)
JdeBP 6y ago
The title certainly suffers from RAS Syndrome.

dustinmoris 6y ago

Disagree very strongly. Microsoft actively invites the user to offer something in return for sponsorship. They have features built into their sponsorship program to encourage that like the tiers and also documentation and examples on GitHub owned properties demonstrate examples of doing exactly that. Therefore Microsoft actively wants you or at least strongly suggests that this is what the user should do whilst at the same time making it impossible for the user to comply with national VAT laws because they withhold you the information and don't allow you to capture that information yourself and don't invoice correctly which is also done by Microsoft automatically. Therefore Microsoft is actively evading VAT and actively pushing their own customers to evade VAT which is a double offence IMHO.

iso1210 6y ago

But it is payment for services -- access to the videos is for sponsors only, just like OnlyFans. Microsoft are arguably acting like Uber, and arguing that they person being sponsored is responsible for the VAT collection. On the other hand they are specifying neither the price, nor what the service is, so perhaps they're more like ebay and amazon. Unlike OnlyFans and Uber, Microsoft isn't a 'disrupter' company that can take the risk, it's an established company in most countries. Uber in the UK, and OnlyFans, and AnyAnswers, are all facing VAT charges. I'm sure other countries are doing the same (and of course in the UK we're about to get an online business tax for some regressive populist reason) https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/business-tax/uber-faces-ps15bn-vat-crisis https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/tax/business-tax/uber-faces-... > As with many VAT issues, including the OnlyFans and Any Answers Ltd cases, it comes down to the simple question: “Who is supplying what and to whom?” > Is Uber acting as an agent for the drivers, putting work their way? If Uber is based in the UK, this agency commission will be standard rated for VAT. > If Uber is supplying passenger transport in the UK, rather than the self-employed driver, the gross fare paid by the passenger to Uber is standard rated. The place of supply for passenger transport is where the journey takes place. Of course it's even more complex with github as the customers aren't all in the UK (almost everyone paying for an Uber in the UK is in the UK - not sure how cross border journeys work in Ireland, and I guess you could engage an uber to take you cross channel too)

JdeBP 6y ago

The title certainly suffers from RAS Syndrome.