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

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)