Plugin Alliance VAT request

[kmonkey]

To put it shortly, this is ridiculous. As said above, it's unfortunate they had this problem but I can't believe they'd send their loyal customers an email like this. Please, PA, have some backbone!

It's not the fault of paying customers if they have problems in their system.

There is no backbone here. Obviously you and 90% people in this very thread never had company running or at least not lately.

I am.

They can't and are not allowed to pay this for themselves. If they want all by the book, legal and clean - it is CUSTOMER which need to pay that.

This is not my opinion this is a legal fact. Read again. Not opinion, FACT. I collect (and pay) this every 30 days. You do not mess with your TAX agency and you do not explain them - hey i did this way because some people at KVR wanted it this way. Haha. There is a law applicable in a country. It is clean and simple. Company need to follow it. End of story. Take it or leave it.

They said they had glitch in the system. It happens. If people (as so usual on KVR) want to make drama out of it then so be it.

My point is they are not allowed for making public cock measuring, hercules backboning or whatever idiotic theory some of you can think of.

I do get your point and maybe for such customers and for their inconvenience they could issue voucher for the same amount they now charge for - for customer next purchase in their shop. Now will you be happy for 2$ voucher or not it is up to you.

Just do not make drama out of it. If i am PA i would report this thread because it is doing more harm then good because people are spreading nonsense and could cause harm for company.

[ATN69]

14 of April I bought bx-limiter but I didn't receive any notifications from Plugin Alliance. It could perhaps be because I am outside of EU. I understand that customers within EU have to pay VAT but even as a tourist you can buy stuff in EU and pay the VAT, but once you leave EU and go back home you can claim back the VAT.

If it is true that Plugin Alliance had a problem in their system it would only be fair if they took the cost. The price reflected in the shopping cart at the time of check out is what you expect to pay. All your options to abort the purchase are long gone once you confirmed and paid.

[kmonkey]

If it is true that Plugin Alliance had a problem in their system it would only be fair if they took the cost.

Did you ever had your company? No really i am asking you.

They sell items, they charge VAT. Simple as that. If they had glitch and did not charged it, they are obligated to charge it.

Sure there is a level of adjustment when these things (issues and glitches )happens but if one want it clean it need to be done by the book (read by the law in that country).

[ATN69]

I used to have my own company in Sweden many years ago so I can only speak for the legality of business in Sweden. I sold goods and services and I had to charge VAT from my customers of course. But there is nothing in the law saying that the company themselves can't cover for the VAT in a case like this. The VAT is collected at the time of purchase in any normal case. It is the company selling that collect it and they have an obligation to book all the transactions, including the VAT and keep the books for at least a period of 10 years after the transaction. The company is also the one to physically pay the VAT money to the government, plus other taxes.

So as a company owner I could go to my customer and say "excuse me, I screwed up because I forgot to charge VAT from you". At that point I am not only risking loosing customers but also loosing the brand name that I paid serious money to build up thru advertisement, etc. The alternative is that the company take this loss and keep the brand name intact and happy customers.

Simple as that.

[db3]

In the UK, shops don't have to honour the sale of a mis-priced item...but once the sale has taken place it's a different story. I don't expect PA has any grounds to ask customers to pay additional charges when they made a mistake—they simply need to absorb it. To email customers about this seem such a poor business decision; my first thought was that it was a scam.

[lnikj]

I used to have my own company in Sweden many years ago so I can only speak for the legality of business in Sweden. I sold goods and services and I had to charge VAT from my customers of course. But there is nothing in the law saying that the company themselves can't cover for the VAT in a case like this. The VAT is collected at the time of purchase in any normal case. It is the company selling that collect it and they have an obligation to book all the transactions, including the VAT and keep the books for at least a period of 10 years after the transaction. The company is also the one to physically pay the VAT money to the government, plus other taxes.

So as a company owner I could go to my customer and say "excuse me, I screwed up because I forgot to charge VAT from you". At that point I am not only risking loosing customers but also loosing the brand name that I paid serious money to build up thru advertisement, etc. The alternative is that the company take this loss and keep the brand name intact and happy customers.

Simple as that.

I agree with this. Let's not forget that this is a US company. I don't think the EU tax authorities are going to care how they receive their money from a US company.

It would be a nonsense to insist that PA collect this money from their customers because collecting it is clearly unenforceable and relies on the goodwill of customers to pay it.

I would imagine that the EU tax authorities only care about the sum of money and not how it was obtained.

[Aloysius]

Where are their offices? We must protest.

[Harry_HH]

Where are their offices? We must protest.

The more effective ways are:

1. As a counter-move is that each customer announces to the Plugin Alliance, that those non-VAT purchases will be returned and the transaction nullifyed, if the PA won't step back.
2. The other move is to announce a now ln purchase boycot in the case the Plugin Alliance won't give away "afterbill" claim.

All in all, the only the badwill will cost to the PA many times more than paying the uncharged VAT from their own pocket, OR find out some creative compromise, e.g. the client pays but gets an extra voucher valid with monthly vouchers, too.

[VariKusBrainZ]

So if your grocer fails to collect tax on an item sold to you he's obligated to come and knock on your door and demand you pay up.

I dont think so

[Aloysius]

Where are their offices? We must protest.

The more effective ways are:

1. As a counter-move is that each customer announces to the Plugin Alliance, that those non-VAT purchases will be returned and the transaction nullifyed, if the PA won't step back.
2. The other move is to announce a now ln purchase boycot in the case the Plugin Alliance won't give away "afterbill" claim.

All in all, the only the badwill will cost to the PA many times more than paying the uncharged VAT from their own pocket, OR find out some creative compromise, e.g. the client pays but gets an extra voucher valid with monthly vouchers, too.

Excellent ideas.

[InkSFX]

I am pretty sure from a UK legal standpoint that at point of sale you enter a legal contract between buyer and seller for the price and they cannot retrospectively add additional charges. In which case the buyer is under no obligation to pay the increase.

It's like a shop putting the wrong price sticker on an item they have to accept the price displayed.

From a legal point of view, this is pretty much how it is in other EU countries as well. If there was a glitch in the VAT collecting system a company is using, there is no caveat emptor to be applied. Ask anyone working in e-commerce law.

I used to have my own company in Sweden many years ago so I can only speak for the legality of business in Sweden. I sold goods and services and I had to charge VAT from my customers of course. But there is nothing in the law saying that the company themselves can't cover for the VAT in a case like this...So as a company owner I could go to my customer and say "excuse me, I screwed up because I forgot to charge VAT from you". At that point I am not only risking loosing customers but also loosing the brand name that I paid serious money to build up thru advertisement, etc. The alternative is that the company take this loss and keep the brand name intact and happy customers.

Simple as that.

Let's not forget that this is a US company. I don't think the EU tax authorities are going to care how they receive their money from a US company. It would be a nonsense to insist that PA collect this money from their customers because collecting it is clearly unenforceable and relies on the goodwill of customers to pay it. I would imagine that the EU tax authorities only care about the sum of money and not how it was obtained.

In the UK, shops don't have to honour the sale of a mis-priced item...but once the sale has taken place it's a different story. I don't expect PA has any grounds to ask customers to pay additional charges when they made a mistake—they simply need to absorb it. To email customers about this seem such a poor business decision; my first thought was that it was a scam.

All of These.

I don't know which country you're in, kmonkey, but as a (presumably) small business entrepreneur, you should get to know the consumer protection laws of your country, thoroughly.

PA sell items online, yes. To customers overseas, yes. They have to charge VAT when applicable, yes. Their system had a glitch - they are obligated to charge it from their customers? No.

If you can provide the legal clauses (ie the facts you mentioned, but do not provide) which clearly state the customer has to pay in a situation like this, feel free to do so. In that case, I'm also very interested what country you live in.

As a business, PA should be prepared (SWOT/RA) to technical problems - either via testing their systems, before they implement them, inside out (or having them tested by the developer) or by agreement with the company they buy their payment management system from.

I don't see them giving customers vouchers for this as good business, not at all. Saying "Hey, we had a problem, made you pay for it, but here's a complimentary voucher - come buy more stuff!" would be really bad for them, and not only because they would lose income on the sales made with these vouchers applied, at least theoretically speaking.

kmonkey, If you'd be PA (which fortunately, you're not) and would report this thread it would only make the situation worse for you, and make you look like a total ass. Fortunately, we do not live in a world of totalitarian capitalism . PA has already done quite the business mistake by sending their customers an email like they have, and the only ones harming their business at the moment are themselves, and no one else.

And as for backbones, "cock measuring", idiotic hercules theories and whatnot...dude, please...

[sonicpowa]

So if your grocer fails to collect tax on an item sold to you he's obligated to come and knock on your door and demand you pay up.

I dont think so

Haha.. that´s what I was thinking too.. Or they start to investigate their surveillance camera tapes and hire a private eye to hunt down customers who payed in cash..

[InkSFX]

So if your grocer fails to collect tax on an item sold to you he's obligated to come and knock on your door and demand you pay up.

I dont think so

Haha.. that´s what I was thinking too.. Or they start to investigate their surveillance camera tapes and hire a private eye to hunt down customers who payed in cash..

Lol.

[Harry_HH]

I am pretty sure from a UK legal standpoint that at point of sale you enter a legal contract between buyer and seller for the price and they cannot retrospectively add additional charges. In which case the buyer is under no obligation to pay the increase.

It's like a shop putting the wrong price sticker on an item they have to accept the price displayed.

From a legal point of view, this is pretty much how it is in other EU countries as well. If there was a glitch in the VAT collecting system a company is using, there is no caveat emptor to be applied. Ask anyone working in e-commerce law.

I used to have my own company in Sweden many years ago so I can only speak for the legality of business in Sweden. I sold goods and services and I had to charge VAT from my customers of course. But there is nothing in the law saying that the company themselves can't cover for the VAT in a case like this...So as a company owner I could go to my customer and say "excuse me, I screwed up because I forgot to charge VAT from you". At that point I am not only risking loosing customers but also loosing the brand name that I paid serious money to build up thru advertisement, etc. The alternative is that the company take this loss and keep the brand name intact and happy customers.

Simple as that.

Let's not forget that this is a US company. I don't think the EU tax authorities are going to care how they receive their money from a US company. It would be a nonsense to insist that PA collect this money from their customers because collecting it is clearly unenforceable and relies on the goodwill of customers to pay it. I would imagine that the EU tax authorities only care about the sum of money and not how it was obtained.

In the UK, shops don't have to honour the sale of a mis-priced item...but once the sale has taken place it's a different story. I don't expect PA has any grounds to ask customers to pay additional charges when they made a mistake—they simply need to absorb it. To email customers about this seem such a poor business decision; my first thought was that it was a scam.

All of These.

I don't know which country you're in, kmonkey, but as a (presumably) small business entrepreneur, you should get to know the consumer protection laws of your country, thoroughly.

PA sell items online, yes. To customers overseas, yes. They have to charge VAT when applicable, yes. Their system had a glitch - they are obligated to charge it from their customers? No.

If you can provide the legal clauses (ie the facts you mentioned, but do not provide) which clearly state the customer has to pay in a situation like this, feel free to do so. In that case, I'm also very interested what country you live in.

As a business, PA should be prepared (SWOT/RA) to technical problems - either via testing their systems, before they implement them, inside out (or having them tested by the developer) or by agreement with the company they buy their payment management system from.

I don't see them giving customers vouchers for this as good business, not at all. Saying "Hey, we had a problem, made you pay for it, but here's a complimentary voucher - come buy more stuff!" would be really bad for them, and not only because they would lose income on the sales made with these vouchers applied, at least technically speaking.

kmonkey, If you'd be PA (which fortunately, you're not) and would report this thread it would only make the situation worse for you, and make you look like a total ass. Fortunately, we do not live in a world of totalitarian capitalism . PA has already done quite the business mistake by sending their customers an email like they have, and the only ones harming their business at the moment are themselves, and no one else.

And as for backbones, "cock measuring", idiotic hercules theories and whatnot...dude, please...

This man is really angry, I wonder why?
Only 8 posts in the Kvr history, and so many negative ones. Any relation to the PA?

[shonky]

Think I bought the Vertigo saturation and green screamer plug that month so that would cost around an additional $10. I had previously seen the addition of 20% VAT in the total but did not see it that month, which made me think that a) either the VAT was now automatically included in the price, b) that there was an error in listing the percentage of VAT or c) that there had been a change in tax regulations concerning VAT paid in other countries.

To me, it seems that the error is either that of those installing the e-commerce software and hence should be their liability or a mistake on behalf of PA which is their responsibility. As far as I'm concerned, the final price, as calculated by the vendor, is the final price and the VAT constituent of that bill is their issue - I don't buy a £5 packet of batteries and then arrange to send the treasury an additional £1 to cover VAT. This is nonsense quite frankly.

I like PA, their customer service is very good and I enjoy using their products and will likely buy more from them in the future but I can see many people simply asking for a return and refund for that month's purchases if they now decide that the final price isn't actually final.