We thought Jersey's VAT abuse was over, but rumour reaches me some have not accepted their fate.
Apparently there is a plan to route Jersey mail via Belgium and Germany and then into the UK and claim freedom of open circulation for mail and then add to it a right to LVCR - even though the point of origin will clearly be Jersey from where LVCR is now banned.
Tax abusers rarely know limits, of course, but one would hope Jersey Post, Deutsche Post and the Belgian Post Office do.
If not someone is going to need to take some legal action very soon to prevent this abuse.
Of course - it could start by cancelling all VAT agreements with Jersey - and that could be sanction enough.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
News to me. What sort of source is the rumour?
Cancelling all VAT agreements would undoubtedly hurt legitimate local businesses like tourism – I don’t think punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty is a good message to send out.
You’re nor asking me to name sources are you?
mine are usually good
I would have thought that the least we should be permitted to know from a research organisation funded by charitable donations, research grants and subsidies would be what their sources are, especially an organisation that deals in the delicate issue of questionable finances…
Ultimately, the change in the law won’t do a single thing to crack down on the companies that are exploiting a loophole for tax avoidance purposes, who will just shift their operations elsewhere. What it *will* do is significantly impact on legitimate Channel Islands-based companies, drive upwards of 2000 people out of work in the Channel Islands, and create unmanageable levels of unemployment, without major companies providing the taxable revenue to pay for it.
I disclose my funding sources
There is no evidence for your claims
But note this – 10,000 jobs were lost ion the UK High Street in the first quater of this year
I thought one of the main arguments against Jersey’s LVCR business was because the goods did NOT originate from there!
If the business concerned is not a Jersey business and is just in effect utilising Jersey’s state-of-the-art warehousing facilities, then I’m not sure its really an issue, although its hard to see how the extra shipping and transport costs would make this remotely viable.
It was always said that just closing out LVCR for the Channel Islands would simply drive it elsewhere, and that it was not only discriminatory but pointless to just exclude the Channel Islands. The UK either wants to close down LVCR or it doesn’t…..
I’m baffled
What are you saying?
Some people and institutions are addicted to tax avoidance, they are scroungers, plain and simple.
Their sense of entitlement is nauseating.
Keep up the good work Richard.
Route it via Belgium and Germany… wouldnt that mean DHL? of course Deutshe post own DHL. not that im putting 2 and 2 together of course.
What I’m saying is in response to your phrase in your original post…”even though the point of origin will clearly be Jersey from where LVCR is now banned.”
You have previously attacked the artificiality of Jersey using LVCR on the basis that the origin of the goods was NOT Jersey, but now you suggest that their proposed circular routing will not work “even though the point of origin will clearly be Jersey…”
If that’s where they’re posted that’s their postal origin
Do you deny that?
If so, how?
Richard
I think we are at crossed purposes here.
And by the way, I’m not a supporter at all of the exploitation by Jersey of LVCR – I’m just trying to get my head around what you have said previously.
In the example given in your opening thread, Jersey might be their “postal origin” but its clearly not their “origin”. If they weren’t produced in Jersey then they must have been posted/despatched to Jersey from somewhere other than Jersey, so Jersey really isn’t the source of origin at all.
In that case, how does posting the goods from Jersey to Belgium to Switzerland to the UK enable “Jersey” to get around the new rules at all?
For LVCR the point of postal origin is what counts
Interestingly – that’s not how the new UK law is written – which creates a new distance selling concept
That may in itself over-rule the use of LVCR here – but it looks like LVCR abuse is planned and that is baed on the place of postal origin
Of course, it would be good if my source was wrong