From A. Sent Thu, Mar 7th 2019, 21:26
The thing with paying tax on old goods is that sometimes old goods go up = in value rather than down. Imagine you didn=E2=80=99t have to pay tax if = you want to import a nice Van Gogh that your great-great-great Auntie = could have bought for the price of a pound of sausages (fictitious = example for effect...), but now it=E2=80=99s worth the same as the GDP = of a pound of small countries. You surely couldn=E2=80=99t complain = about that being unfair based on the original ticket price of the item = and that there was a tax paid on its very first sale. The same goes for = second-hand anything really. It=E2=80=99s a tax on the movement of value. Not goods. Anyway, we have always been getting hit with customs duties. And i=E2=80=99= ve never understood why we had to pay VAT still when buying things from = EU countries. Even software. Ableton, for instance, is much cheaper for = Americans (exchange value considered) as there is no 20% VAT added to = the price at the shopping cart. > On 7 Mar 2019, at 20:44, Sevo Stille <xxxx@xxxxxx.xx> wrote: >=20 >=20 > Am 07.03.2019 um 19:42 schrieb Werner Sch=C3=B6nenberger: >>> The difference from what is suggested here is that the tax is = entirely >>> my burden and not that of the seller. >=20 > That is the relevant difference. In that a country demanding taxes = from a foreign seller has little options to get them - the more so if = they are in limbo without international treaties. Doing it the wrong way = around is rather a bizarre notion, even more so when it comes from a = fairly small and irrelevant country that has given up all options of = cross border litigation. The probable outcome is that many Brits that = come up against that regulation would see their purchases from abroad = confiscated and destroyed by HM Revenue and Customs without compensation = - given that, there is a fair chance they'll correct it before the cry = to return to the EU gets too loud... >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20