4 ms·

As a solo indiehacker in Europe, its crazy that I have to be so worried about VAT related things and big tech just goes around the whole thing and doesn't even

As a solo indiehacker in Europe, its crazy that I have to be so worried about VAT related things and big tech just goes around the whole thing and doesn't even expect to be charged just fined

amarcheschi 7mo ago
Well, for once execs are being investigated as well
cbg0 7mo ago
You only have to be worried if you're doing something illegal, like the guys in the article. Misfiling something won't land you in jail, just some fines at the most. Intent matters quite a bit.
- bluefirebrand 7mo ago
  When you're not wealthy, "some fines at most" can be a really nasty setback
  - omnimus 7mo ago
    No really the fines in line with the profits and your intent. Businesses who get into trouble because of taxes are doing it intentionally. Or somebody in the company does it intentionally.
- vjvjvjvjghv 7mo ago
  “ just some fines at the most. “ That’s ok for the big players with deep pockets. For the little guy this is a much bigger problem. As it should. It would just be nice if law breaking would be a bigger problem for the bigger companies too.
  - riffraff 7mo ago
    I think GPs point is that the fines are generally not crazy. I misfiled stuff a few times and got fined, it's annoying but it's not something that will break your bank. The behaviour of the tax office varies quite a lot from country to country tho.
    - pocksuppet 7mo ago
      Yes. No country is out here destroying productive businesses because they made a paperwork mistake. The penalty is usually proportionate. But don't trust me, ask your lawyer.
      - worik 7mo ago
        > No country is out here destroying productive businesses because they made a paperwork mistake. New Zealand. The Accident Compensation Corporation, a compulsory insurance scheme, is absolutely feral. Will crush you "because rules" without a thought.
        pocksuppet 7mo ago
        What were the rules you broke, and what was the penalty?
        worik 7mo ago
        Sigh Many an varied I was once charged $1200 for income of $600 Within the rules, could've easily bankrupted me
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
      - stephen_g 7mo ago
        I can see that happening in Australia, our tax office can be absolutely brutal on all but the big companies that can afford really good lawyers.
    - 7mo ago
- dathinab 7mo ago
  If you are found personally responsible for tax evasion >1e6€ then the minimal penalty is prison sentence without parole option. This is true for many EU countries including Italy. Idk. about the max. prison length in Italy for this but e.g. where I live in the EU you are likely looking at ~15 years for 1e9€ tax evasion. The reason executives commonly avoid such penalties is because they avoid being found personally liable by claiming they didn't known, did misunderstood the situation, where deceived by others etc. Through it should be noted that this case is a bit unusual and complicated. The tax dispute itself isn't as simple as Amazone directly having avoided paying their own taxes. And the case of missing taxes has already been settled. This new current investigations are criminal investigation (i.e. the failure of paying taxes is assumed to have been intentional instead of a booking error) and seem to be more targeting executives for having committed crimes (instead of targeting Amazone the company). Or in other words, Italian prosecutors are feed up US companies not caring for EU law and no one being hold liable. --- (1): Without option to have it replaced with long time parole.
  - jen20 7mo ago
    > The reason executives commonly avoid such penalties is because they avoid being found personally liable by claiming they didn't known, did misunderstood the situation, where deceived by others etc. In the US, Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act exists literally to avoid this: the CEO and CFO have to personally sign filings so they cannot "not know" about financial disclosure content and have plausible deniability. While it only applies to public companies, the model seems reasonable to solve this case too.
    - dathinab 7mo ago
      "not know" was oversimplified from me, technically such things exist in many countries, most likely also Italy. But this comes back to how thinks always tend to be more complicate then "clean cut direct tax avoidance". E.g. here the case isn't as simple as Amazone directly avoiding tax. But them instead to quote: > Amazon's algorithm and operating models enabled the sale in Italy of goods from tens of thousands of non‑EU sellers - mostly Chinese - without disclosing their identity, helping them avoid paying value‑added tax (VAT) I.e. Amazon is seen responsible for acting with sever levels of negligence with suspicion of intentionally enabling/supporting tax evasion to profit from it. (And honestly given the level of fraudulent-looking things Amazone allows vendors since a very long time, there is likely some truth to the "intentional supporting malicious actions" part.). And in turn executives don't claim exactly "they didn't know". They claim they did know and started actions to fix the issue but it the actions failed so you tried other actions and if asked why no bigger actions are tried they claim it didn't look like it was "that" big of a problem through they now realize that was wrong. The end effect is still the same they doge responsibility as-if they could just claim they didn't know, just with extra steps. Instead of "didn't know" I probably should have used "they claimed incompetence" (and external factors outside of their control) or similar.

As a solo indiehacker in Europe, its crazy that I have to be so worried about VAT related things and big tech just goes around the whole thing and doesn't even expect to be charged just fined

amarcheschi 7mo ago

Well, for once execs are being investigated as well

cbg0 7mo ago

You only have to be worried if you're doing something illegal, like the guys in the article. Misfiling something won't land you in jail, just some fines at the most. Intent matters quite a bit.

bluefirebrand 7mo ago
When you're not wealthy, "some fines at most" can be a really nasty setback
- omnimus 7mo ago
  No really the fines in line with the profits and your intent. Businesses who get into trouble because of taxes are doing it intentionally. Or somebody in the company does it intentionally.
vjvjvjvjghv 7mo ago
“ just some fines at the most. “ That’s ok for the big players with deep pockets. For the little guy this is a much bigger problem. As it should. It would just be nice if law breaking would be a bigger problem for the bigger companies too.
- riffraff 7mo ago
  I think GPs point is that the fines are generally not crazy. I misfiled stuff a few times and got fined, it's annoying but it's not something that will break your bank. The behaviour of the tax office varies quite a lot from country to country tho.
  - pocksuppet 7mo ago
    Yes. No country is out here destroying productive businesses because they made a paperwork mistake. The penalty is usually proportionate. But don't trust me, ask your lawyer.
    - worik 7mo ago
      > No country is out here destroying productive businesses because they made a paperwork mistake. New Zealand. The Accident Compensation Corporation, a compulsory insurance scheme, is absolutely feral. Will crush you "because rules" without a thought.
      - pocksuppet 7mo ago
        What were the rules you broke, and what was the penalty?
        worik 7mo ago
        Sigh Many an varied I was once charged $1200 for income of $600 Within the rules, could've easily bankrupted me
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - stephen_g 7mo ago
      I can see that happening in Australia, our tax office can be absolutely brutal on all but the big companies that can afford really good lawyers.
  - 7mo ago
dathinab 7mo ago
If you are found personally responsible for tax evasion >1e6€ then the minimal penalty is prison sentence without parole option. This is true for many EU countries including Italy. Idk. about the max. prison length in Italy for this but e.g. where I live in the EU you are likely looking at ~15 years for 1e9€ tax evasion. The reason executives commonly avoid such penalties is because they avoid being found personally liable by claiming they didn't known, did misunderstood the situation, where deceived by others etc. Through it should be noted that this case is a bit unusual and complicated. The tax dispute itself isn't as simple as Amazone directly having avoided paying their own taxes. And the case of missing taxes has already been settled. This new current investigations are criminal investigation (i.e. the failure of paying taxes is assumed to have been intentional instead of a booking error) and seem to be more targeting executives for having committed crimes (instead of targeting Amazone the company). Or in other words, Italian prosecutors are feed up US companies not caring for EU law and no one being hold liable. --- (1): Without option to have it replaced with long time parole.
- jen20 7mo ago
  > The reason executives commonly avoid such penalties is because they avoid being found personally liable by claiming they didn't known, did misunderstood the situation, where deceived by others etc. In the US, Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act exists literally to avoid this: the CEO and CFO have to personally sign filings so they cannot "not know" about financial disclosure content and have plausible deniability. While it only applies to public companies, the model seems reasonable to solve this case too.
  - dathinab 7mo ago
    "not know" was oversimplified from me, technically such things exist in many countries, most likely also Italy. But this comes back to how thinks always tend to be more complicate then "clean cut direct tax avoidance". E.g. here the case isn't as simple as Amazone directly avoiding tax. But them instead to quote: > Amazon's algorithm and operating models enabled the sale in Italy of goods from tens of thousands of non‑EU sellers - mostly Chinese - without disclosing their identity, helping them avoid paying value‑added tax (VAT) I.e. Amazon is seen responsible for acting with sever levels of negligence with suspicion of intentionally enabling/supporting tax evasion to profit from it. (And honestly given the level of fraudulent-looking things Amazone allows vendors since a very long time, there is likely some truth to the "intentional supporting malicious actions" part.). And in turn executives don't claim exactly "they didn't know". They claim they did know and started actions to fix the issue but it the actions failed so you tried other actions and if asked why no bigger actions are tried they claim it didn't look like it was "that" big of a problem through they now realize that was wrong. The end effect is still the same they doge responsibility as-if they could just claim they didn't know, just with extra steps. Instead of "didn't know" I probably should have used "they claimed incompetence" (and external factors outside of their control) or similar.