could the new HMRC rules SEE A MASS EXODUS FROM E BAY

[reasonable-robert]

hi ...(quote)

From 1 January 2024, new UK digital sales reporting legislation requires eBay, and other UK digital marketplaces, to report a user’s sales over clearly defined thresholds to HMRC. 

For more information about UK digital sales reporting and what information will be shared with HMRC, visit our Help page.

Please also see guidance from HMRC for more information on when you may or may not need to pay tax for selling goods online.

It is important to be aware that this is not a new tax or a change to existing tax rules for people who use online marketplaces. 

Required UK digital sales reporting should only affect newly registered accounts in 2024 and all accounts in 2025 who pass either of the below calendar year sales thresholds on eBay: 

• Total sales on eBay is equal to or more than €2,000 (approximately £1,740) after deducting fees and commissions or taxes
• 30 or more sales transactions are completed on eBay (cancelled transactions are not included in the calculation)
• Starting from January 2025, the prior calendar year's information will be reported to HMRC each January and a copy of the reported data will be provided to sellers. We recommend that you consult HMRC or a tax advisor if you have any questions about your tax obligations. 

In order to pay tax on the goods or services you sell online, you either have to be trading or making a capital gain.

If you are just selling some unwanted possessions that have been lying around your home, such as the contents of a loft or garage, it is unlikely that you will have to pay income tax. If you sell possessions for more than you paid for them you may have to pay capital gains tax, but only if you exceed your annual allowance for such gains (currently £6,000). For more information on capital gains tax on personal possessions, see guidance from HMRC.

If you buy goods for resale, or make goods with the intention of selling them for a profit, then you are likely to be trading and will have to pay tax on your profits.

However, if your total income from trading or providing services online was less than £1,000 (before deducting expenses) in any tax year, you would not be required to inform HMRC nor pay any tax on the profits (this is due to the Trading and Miscellaneous Income Allowance). .......(unquote)

so unless you,re a freind of the tories, non dom, a member of the royal family or own a big business then the tax man will be after you.

the fall out as many people have said will be sellers looking elsewhere to sell.

facebook could only comply if you sell on the marketplace as the local sites are independantly run by individuals acting as admins so they would have to get every site to report sellers over a certain threshold which couldnt realisticly be done.

meanwhile back at e bay could this see a mass drop in members, sales and sellers both business and private walking away from e bay as 30 transactions in a year is easily achieveable in just one month.

it looks as if e bay could finally morph into the rival shopping destination to amazon its desperate to become and before the B.S clap their hands and cheer remember that when people walk away theres only those who are looking for certain items that you may sell left.

lots of competetitors selling the same thing not just here but on amazon and other sites and the chinese sellers....call it reality.

now lets have a sensible discussion without silly comments please.     

[theelench]

I'm assuming they will if I cross one of the thresholds and probably in the longer term they will require a TIN from anyone selling on the site.  Probably as HMRC tightens the reporting rules in years to come.

I'm a regular on their boards and so far as I'm aware The Management hasn't yet made any announcement about their new reporting obligations or about how it intends to go about complying.

All I've seen is a rather short thread, likely started by another seller who sells on both sites, having seen either ebays announcement or discussion here.

I'm slightly less unhappy about giving them my NINO as they are UK based, with UK citizens as owners/directors.  When they do make some move to comply I will ask them if I can use my SE UTR and see what they say.

If they also insist on having my NINO at least there might be some comfort from there being no conflicting jurisdictions, they are fully covered by UK data protection laws and can't try any slippery legal moves to deny access or responsibility.

[ett1954]

@theelench   "If they also insist on having my NINO at least there might be some comfort from there being no conflicting jurisdictions, they are fully covered by UK data protection laws and can't try any slippery legal moves to deny access or responsibility."

eBay UK are also governed by the same UK data protection laws.  Any failure by either company can result in massive financial penalties which could easily result in the closure of their business.  I am sure both companies will comply fully with the legislation in the same way banks, building societies, your employer (if you pay tax through the PAYE scheme), and HMRC do now.

[theelench]

I'm afraid I don't have your faith.

Ebay has a lengthening list of convictions in the US for breaking their laws, although I don't recall any directly involving misuse of data.  But it doesn't persuade me that they are all-together law abiding.

Neither does reading on here that amazon has been fined, more than once, for selling its customers data.

And facebook has been fined for illegally passing personal data on to its US parent company.

Strikes me that with the whole lot of them if there's a conflict between legality and bolstering their bottom line, the bottom line wins if they think they can get away with it.  Just think how many years billion $ corporations can tie-up the verdict with legal arguments and appeals to avoid being found categorically guilty.

I stick with the UK company, thank you.

[ett1954]

"Ebay has a lengthening list of convictions in the US for breaking their laws, although I don't recall any directly involving misuse of data.  But it doesn't persuade me that they are all-together law abiding."  -  These were criminal activities by senior management and consultants for which there is no excuse.  At least five people were convicted and served time; none are now employed by eBay.

"Neither does reading on here that amazon has been fined, more than once, for selling its customers data."  -  Amazon weren't fined for selling data but for their interpretation of what are 'legitimate interest' when displaying third party adverts to their customers.  It was accepted that no customer data was passed to third parties.  As far as I am aware this judgement is still under appeal.

"And facebook has been fined for illegally passing personal data on to its US parent company."  -  Again not strictly correct.  Like the Amazon fine, another ECJ (European Court of Justice) judgement.  They were fined €1.3 billion, not for illegally passing on personal data to their US operation, but for not following the correct protocols when doing so.  This recent judgement is also being considered for appeal by Meta (Facebook's owner) who believe they were following the correct protocols.

What the above three examples you chose should confirm to you is that there are strict controls and legislation in place, with severe financial penalties, to protect your data from being misused.

[the_book_seekers]

As a business seller you won't be required to give ebay your NINO, you will be asked for your UTR.

This has to be confirmed. There is a school of thought that ebay will be asking individual sellers for their NINOs which includes sole traders. I think we will only know for sure when the requests come in.  I would 

prefer to hand over my UTR to ebay rather than NINO. 

[thetimetower]

This is the bottom line. Anybody who uses the internet can't worry about handing over an NI number. I mean Google was recording everyone's voice without telling anyone for ages before they got told not to.

[theelench]

The ebay case you mention is only one of several where ebay were found guilty, but we are on thin ice by even mentioning it obliquely.

Yes I agree   "there are strict controls and legislation in place, with severe financial penalties, to protect your data from being misused." 

The authorities have attempted to prevent the misuse of data but what you say doesn't persuade me that they will be successful.

It seems to me that your replies to my examples re. amazon and facebook, show that they are doing what I said in paragraph following the one you quote.

That they have tried to bend the rules to their advantage, been challenged and are now engaged in the sort of legal shenanigans, which they will drag out for years, to avoid the penalties.

It doesn't give me much confidence that although there is legislation and procedures in place, with (possibly) harsh penalties for not complying, that they will be ineffective protection.  Ineffective protection equals no protection at all.

[theelench]

Oh dear, so google has also up to something dudious until told to stop.

None of this is bolstering my confidence that US Corporations should be trusted with any more private info. than strictly necessary.

To me whoever it was in the British Govt.  that decided NINOs were an appropriate piece of information to exchange for a quick bit of extra tax revenue needs their head examined at the very least 🙂

[vinylscot]

@theelench  You're beginning to sound a little desperate now. You stick with your UK company, if it makes you feel better, but bear in mind that their security procedures are not likely to be anywhere as great as those performed by the "multinationals". 

Additionally, if an organisation as large as eBay did get hacked, 1) the probablity of your particular data being used is still vanishingly small, and 2) eBay's possession of the data is strongly regulated by the appropriate authorities. It would still be a pain if they were hacked but individuals would be indemnified from losses arising from such an event.

Now, your UK company (I think we know who you mean). Their protections will be much less robust, probably at the lowest levelpermitted. If they are hacked, it is more likely to be a targeted hack, from inside the UK, and your data is much more likely to be used, partly because of that, and partly because of the much smaller volume of data. Is your UK entity as tightly regulated as eBay? I strongly doubt it.

All platforms, sooner or later, will be providing the required info to HMRC, even if they haven't told their sellers yet. Spreading your sales in the vain hope of staying under the radar will only result in more organisations holding your data.

Fair enough, you don't trust eBay. That's a personal thing for you; to many of the rest of us, your reasoning just doesn't hold water. 

[theelench]

Nope, not getting desperate at all, just answering a few different points as they arise.

No, I don't trust ebay and that is a personal thing, but you don't know any more about the other site's inner workings and security than you do about ebays.

As for my reasoning, you should look to your own as  by your comment about my "Spreading my sales in the vain hope..... etc." you have incorrectly reversed what I said and what I intend to do. 

That is concentrate my sales on the site I trust most, or perhaps just distrust least.  A point that is at least relevant to the topic in that it will mean the end of my selling on ebay so might possibly be part of a mass exodus.

[signs_and_vintage]

HMRC won't have a clue what to do with all the data, they will initially likely pay millions for some poorly written AI to trudge through it all, that will later throw up a few Daily Mail 'Retired Grandmother of 4 DEMANDED TO PAY £1000 IN TAX for selling late husbands model car collection' type stories.

So after a few complaints from the governmemt of the day, they will probably then revert to only even looking at double digit thousands in suspected evasion. And even then they don't have the staff. Nor are they likely to ever get the staff. 

TL;DR it won't make a fig of difference to buying or selling. As was said earlier those who actually are evading tax will be one step ahead of the game, although if fully anabled the new companies registration requirements MIGHT put paid to some of the more egrarious Ltd. co. using scammers.

[theelench]

That's what I was alluding to in my first post on page 1.

It's been mentioned on other threads that AI will be be able to wade through the huge amount of new information, throwing out (long?) lists of "suspect" sellers.  Will HMRC be able to follow it up with sensible decisions about who gets a 'nudge' letter, or might they be tempted to skip the polite enquiry stage and in attempting to get through the lists, opt for just sending SA Tax Returns.

IMO the former is a sensible approach, the latter wouldn't be and could cause a much bigger exodus. 

[*vyolla*]

---

@signs_and_vintage wrote:

HMRC won't have a clue what to do with all the data, they will initially likely pay millions for some poorly written AI to trudge through it all, that will later throw up a few Daily Mail 'Retired Grandmother of 4 DEMANDED TO PAY £1000 IN TAX for selling late husbands model car collection' type stories.

---

😁 Totally prescient. 

[missdollydaydream]

I suspect any mass exodus will be through eBays dishonesty & incompetence.

[signs_and_vintage]

^ Indeed 🙂

[reasonable-robert]

thanks for that so it is possible to have a sensible discussion on these boards....😁

im intrested in other peoples opinions  maybe its time for me to cross over to the other side 

(not litrally) but e bay seems to be picking up again on some things

[reasonable-robert]

i do believe i read somewhere e bay will withold payments to those who do not comply

[signs_and_vintage]

Until the court case...

[papso22]

---

@signs_and_vintage wrote:

Until the court case...

---

I am curious, who do you think is going to sue who, and for what exactly?

[theelench]

That is a tactic ebay has used in the past when a seller hasn't handed over whatever information ebay wants at the time.

Frequently ebay has waited for the seller to make a sale, then freeze payments until they comply.  

I think I'm right in saying that, if that happens the seller has two choices. 

Give ebay the information it is asking for.  

Or, close their account, in which case ebay will hold any cash until there is no possibility of a buyer asking for a refund (180 days??), after that ebay will release the funds.

Whether, as this is effectively HMRC asking for the info., the second option is still open or not, is something only time will tell.