French Government Thinks Amazon Is Too Customer Friendly

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Is this really relevant in this thread? Amazon is not breaking any laws.

Of course it is since a loophole is unintented. So laws works much better if people respect the intention and do not try to use unintended loopholes.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by tompe

Of course it is since a loophole is unintented. So laws works much better if people respect the intention and do not try to use unintended loopholes.

Let's be clear here. Amazon is in full compliance of all laws in Europe regarding this issue. Therefore, "adherence" in this case is not applicable.

If anyone is not in compliance with the laws it is Luxemburg and France. Which is why the EC is currently trying to get them to raise their VAT on ebooks and threatening to fine the two countries. This is somewhat ironic since what began this thread is an article about France's objection to the way Amazon sells books.

--Pat

[aceflor]

It is scary to read some completely uninformed posts in this thread, more often than not from members living in the EU, who most probably voted at one time or another for texts and resolutions they have obviously no clue about.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Amazon is not breaking any laws.

In your opinion. But mainstream reporting last month found otherwise:

Over the past six years, Amazon has paid around $9 million (5.9 million pounds) in income tax on over $23 billion of sales to British clients, because it says it operates a single European business out of Luxembourg, rather than a multinational structure of independent subsidiaries in different countries, and should therefore pay tax in Luxembourg.

However, Reuters has uncovered evidence from the company's own statements, job advertisements, statements from three suppliers and five former employees, as well as the profiles of over 140 staff on networking website LinkedIn, which suggests the UK unit has a high degree of autonomy, with local managers deciding on many aspects of its business.

I'm not saying Amazon is guilty of attributing UK sales to Luxembourg. But there is an ongoing UK investigation, the results of which are unknown.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

In your opinion. But mainstream reporting last month found otherwise:

The news media cannot interpret and determine matters of law.

There is an ongoing inquiry into the matter. But since it is still a gray area of the law which has yet to be clarified, the most one can say is that Amazon may be found, in the future, to be in non-compliance with the law. But no determination of that has yet to be made by any authority in Europe. Amazon has not been officially charged, cited, sanctioned, fined, sued or reprimanded by anyone.

--Pat

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PatNY

The news media cannot interpret and determine matters of law.

There is an ongoing inquiry into the matter. But since it is still a gray area of the law which has yet to be clarified, the most one can say is that Amazon may be found, in the future, to be in non-compliance with the law. But no determination of that has yet to be made by any authority in Europe. Amazon has not been officially charged, cited, sanctioned, fined, sued or reprimanded by anyone.

--Pat

And? They can still be breaking the law. So your statement about Amazon not breaking any laws can be false.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by tompe

And? They can still be breaking the law. So your statement about Amazon not breaking any laws can be false.

Get back to me when they have been found guilty of tax evasion by a court of law. Until then, unlike you and others, I will continue to operate under the "presumed innocent until proven guilty" theorem.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by PatNY

. . . it is still a gray area of the law which has yet to be clarified

This is highly plausible.

Aren't there HM Revenue corporate income tax officials one can contact to ask about those gray areas? And do you think Amazon managers cared enough about not being seen as ugly Americans to do so?

Suppose I was visiting Britain and was unsure of the museum fee. It has happened. Should I just pay the lower amount and hope they won't care? I say no. As a guest in a (slightly) foreign country, I ask.

I suppose the Amazon approach would be to tell the British clerk that, despite what's in front of your eyes, I'm really in Luxembourg, and thus should pay nothing

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

Get back to me when they have been found guilty of tax evasion by a court of law. Until then, unlike you and others, I will continue to operate under the "presumed innocent until proven guilty" theorem.

Presumed innocent is not the same thing as being innocent. My objection was to the claim that they have not done anything illegal. That claim is to strong.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by tompe

And? They can still be breaking the law. So your statement about Amazon not breaking any laws can be false.

Until and unless some official body says they have broken the law, then they haven't.

As of right now, they haven't.

--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Aren't there HM Revenue corporate income tax officials one can contact to ask about those gray areas? And do you think Amazon managers cared enough about not being seen as ugly Americans to do so?

Do you really think Amazon is the only company doing this? I have news for you, Steve, they are not. So why should they inquire about something that other companies do? To Amazon, it is not a gray area. To those inquiring about it, it is.

Suppose I was visiting Britain and was unsure of the museum fee. It has happened. Should I just pay the lower amount and hope they won't care? I say no. As a guest in a (slightly) foreign country, I ask.

Your analogies are quite a stretch, but I'll entertain you on this one anyway. In the case of Amazon, there was no question about the tax situation. They knew the laws and acted according to them. They were not unsure of the "fees" the way you are about the museum fees in your analogy.

I suppose the Amazon approach would be to tell the British clerk that, despite what's in front of your eyes, I'm really in Luxembourg, and thus should pay nothing

But Amazon IS really in Luxemburg. That's where their European headquarters are.

--Pat

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Do you really think Amazon is the only company doing this?

Of course not. But as documented in my link in #98, it would be equally mistaken to say that all firms do it.

They knew the laws and acted according to them.

You earlier said it was a "gray area of the law." If so, they didn't know.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Until and unless some official body says they have broken the law, then they haven't.

As of right now, they haven't.

--Pat

Uh, I'm pretty much on the side here thinking that Amazon is probably just doing what every other company does, making sure they pay as few taxes as possible. (Just like most private citizens, by the way).

But this...did you read this? I could kill someone, but I haven't broken the law until some official body says I did?!

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Of course not. But as documented in my link in #98, it would be equally mistaken to say that all firms do it.

Name one major multinational corporation that deals with digital media and IP on a major scale like Amazon does who doesn't do it.

Apple and Google do the same exact thing Amazon does, and in the case of Apple, the accusations of tax avoidance through their Irish "shell" companies are significantly more extreme than what Amazon has been accused of.

You earlier said it was a "gray area of the law." If so, they didn't know.

No, Amazon knew the laws and according to precedent and their own legal counsel they were acting within those laws. It's the British authorities who are seeing "gray" when it comes to Amazon's physical operations in the UK.

--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

But this...did you read this? I could kill someone, but I haven't broken the law until some official body says I did?!

Killing someone is rarely a gray area. When it is a gray area -- such as in instances of self defense -- then it isn't a crime until some official body (a jury, for example) says it is.

--Pat