The item shipped in the post I originally quoted wasn't a T-shirt and it wasn't second hand. It was brand new and merely had an additional step in its shipping.
Package from U.S.
- Thread starter Jean-F
- Start date
The item shipped in the post I originally quoted wasn't a T-shirt and it wasn't second hand. It was brand new and merely had an additional step in its shipping.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
I'm talking about the op's case. This would be a second hand good. Like it or not.
If this went to a court case I would happily place a bet your interpretation would lose.
It's the same principle, a middle party acting as a shipper of brand new goods for which the UK purchaser has paid them full price.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
So you're saying if I go to buy a car and then I sell it to someone else after having received the car, the second owner is the first owner from new?
That's not how be the DVLA would call it.
If you're buying cars for £50k and passing them on immediately for £10k I'll take one please.
I'm not sure what relevance the DVLA has to rules surrounding taxation which is the remit of HMRC.
Can't remember which one Jimmy Carr did.
The first purchaser in the US will pay US tax on it. It will then be shipped to the UK, and (if it is of the appropriate value and commodity) be taxed again, this time under UK taxation.
The chances are an item like this will slip under the radar, but that's not something you can't guarantee - and if it doesn't (slip under the radar) then tax absolutely will be collected at a rate that HMRC seems appropriate.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
But you agree the car you will receive is now second owner and you won't be the first right?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,072
- Location
- Shepley
Not that something like this would ever go to court, but if it did I imagine HMRC would argue that VAT is due on the original transaction according to who the beneficial owner is and where they plan to consume the product (ie the U.K.). I don’t think interposing someone who is basically a conduit makes any difference.
Regardless, the value of the goods on which import duty is due on should be their new value. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Any steps to obscure this (ie removing packaging and invoices) would amount to evasion.
Regardless, the value of the goods on which import duty is due on should be their new value. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Any steps to obscure this (ie removing packaging and invoices) would amount to evasion.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
So if I buy a second hand item from ebay USA the seller should provide the brand new price to customs rather than the price of the goods now?
Strange because when I do ebay only add tax to the finished auction price. Maybe they are non compliant. Maybe the seller needs to go back 20 tom30 years to get the original new price, do they then adjust for inflation?
What if the value went up do I pay tax on the receipt price or the sell price now?
Worth noting that if you bought a new car in the USA (or got someone in the USA to buy it for you) then tax would be paid in the USA.
On importing it to the UK would attract tax again - even if that happened in the same week.
If you then sold it, or exported it for yourself into the EU then tax would be attracted again.
New or second hand doesn't really have an enormous bearing on it.
You're struggling with this aren't you?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Yes you would pay tax on the value you bought the car for.
The fact that it's second hand would usually dictate the value would be worth significantly less than new, so you therefore expect to pay less tax.
You wouldn't pay import tax on a pre import inspection, servicing etc just the value of the item.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,072
- Location
- Shepley
Simply passing a new item through a friend or relative doesn't impact the market value of the item. That's completely different from buying a used item off eBay from a third party (where the price paid is de facto market value). It's not a difficult concept.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
And how do you define the distinction on a private transaction?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,072
- Location
- Shepley
It's a simple purpose test. In the circumstances here, the US recipient of the goods is only there because the goods cannot be shipped by the seller from the US to the UK. The fact the ultimate recipient in the UK is paying the full price of the goods to the US "intermediary" is a giveaway that the UK recipient is receiving a new item (at its new market value) and not a second hand item.
I'm convinced you're either trolling or being deliberately obtuse.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
The US recipient is an actor who may be charging a 100$ charge to procure, check, test and then rebox and ship a product to any potential purchaser as the purchaser cannot procure these goods any other way.
As the goods have been opened and inspected and potentially even worn/tested and will be without any warranty the value of them will be significantly less than if they were brand new.
Test me.
Cant really understand how this has got to 3 pages. Just tell your US friend when they ship it to put gift $20 on the label and send it to you. Get them to wrap it in happy birthday paper and put Happy Birthday to you on it if you want.
There's a discussion because it's not a $20 item and it's not a gift. Still on page one BTW.
For the scenario to be the same you'd be buying the car for £50k on the basis someone else is going to reimburse you £50k (or may have aleady given you the £50k) and you'll ship it to them. You're a proxy buyer and the value is still £50k.