
“I’m in the US – what if I just ignore the EU VAT changes?” - jkulmala
http://www.happybootstrapper.com/2014/im-us-whatll-happen-just-ignore-eu-vat-changes/
======
Major_Grooves
Yes, this has been quite an amazing f-up by the tax authorities in the EU. I
wrote a blogpost about it the other day:
[http://blog.satago.co.uk/2014/11/what-is-this-vatmoss-
mess/](http://blog.satago.co.uk/2014/11/what-is-this-vatmoss-mess/)

imo the major f-up is removing the tax threshold for selling digital goods -
even if you sell a £1 kintting pattern you have to register for VAT now.

~~~
santacluster
The really major f-up is that of online sellers (it's a major pain for sellers
of physical goods as well, it's just easier for them to at least know which
country they're selling to) who did _absolutely nothing_ during the entire
process of creating and implementing this change, and only now start to whine
when it's way, way too late.

The reasoning behind the law is perfectly logical, and the problem they're
trying to solve very real. The actual implementation utterly impractical, and
a major burden on pretty much everyone.

But the only people who could have told the political dinosaurs and clueless
civil servants just how impractical chose to pretend the change would somehow
magically just go away.

This is one piece of legislation that could probably have been stopped or
redirected quite early on, if those affected had just bothered to try.

~~~
adwf
>if those affected had just bothered to try.

How about: If those affected had even known that this change was happening.

I'd certainly heard that they were changing the VAT rules to crack down on the
likes of Amazon. That I'd now need to charge VAT based on country of consumer.
That's not the crappy part of the legislation as I currently don't need to
charge any VAT at all in the UK.

I hadn't heard that my VAT threshold was being invalidated

I hadn't heard that I'd need to keep records for 10 years (currently the
longest I need to keep anything is 6 years).

I hadn't heard that I'd need to register as a Data Controller (as I now need
to store personal info for 10 years). This leaves me liable for massive fines
if anything goes wrong security-wise in the next 10 years.

It's basically a massive cockup that was targeted at Amazon, Google, Apple and
the like, but has instead hit small business startups and independent traders
the hardest.

~~~
speleding
Good points, awareness certainly is an issue. I found out a few months ago and
just finished updating the payment system for my site. I have learned a few
more interesting gotchas:

\- You are responsible for verifying the location of your buyer (how? who
knows!)

\- It is not enough to know the country code of your buyer. For example the
Canary Islands have country code ES but have a different VAT rate from
mainland Spain

\- Some VAT rates can be fractional, so you can run into problems if you were
using integer calculations in cents to prevent rounding errors (thankfully,
for digital services all VAT numbers are round number starting this year,
let's hope it stays that way)

\- If you register for a MOSS then you pay VAT in euros, but you may have
charged your customer in a local currency (GBP, DKK, CZK or SEK). You need to
use the exchange rate at the day of the sale

This is just the top of my head, there are probably a bunch of minor issues I
forgot.

~~~
Silhouette
_\- If you register for a MOSS then you pay VAT in euros, but you may have
charged your customer in a local currency (GBP, DKK, CZK or SEK). You need to
use the exchange rate at the day of the sale_

I'm not sure this is exactly correct. For the UK, the guidance[1] at the
moment says:

"If you charge or invoice customers in a currency other than the one used by
the MSI and you record that price in your accounts in the foreign currency,
you must:

\- convert it into the MSI currency at the end of each quarter

\- use the conversion rate published by the European Central Bank (ECB) on the
last working day of the quarter

However, if to meet VAT invoicing or other accounting requirements you convert
the foreign currency into the MSI currency using an agreed published daily or
monthly conversion rate, you can use this converted figure when completing
your quarterly VAT MOSS return."

In the above, "Member State of Identification (MSI) is the state in which
you’ve registered for VAT MOSS."

So it looks as though there are three possibilities here:

1\. If you charge customers in your own native currency, then you just have to
apply their location's tax rate on the transaction, instead of applying your
local tax rate as at present.

2\. If you charge customers in their own currency (or any other that isn't
your native one) then you have two options:

2a. You convert the amount charged to your native currency at the time of the
charge, and use that figure and the customer location's tax rate to calculate
the tax due.

2b. You record the transaction in its actual currency at the time of the
charge, and then later you convert to your native currency according to the
standardised exchange rate published by the ECB at the end of each quarter,
use that figure to calculate the tax due, and use these figures when you file
your MOSS return for the quarter that just finished.

But I'm not an accountant, and like many here I've spent too much time in
recent weeks just trying to get straight answers and figure out what all the
"guidance" really means, not to mention trying to find out minor details like
what the current tax rates to use for each location actually are (including
variations within individual member states) and how we're supposed to keep up
with any changes in the future. So don't take my word for anything, I'm just
trying to interpret some official guidance like everyone else...

[1] [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-supplying-
dig...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-supplying-digital-
services-and-the-vat-mini-one-stop-shop/vat-supplying-digital-services-and-
the-vat-mini-one-stop-shop#vat-moss-returns)

~~~
speleding
Interesting. I got my information from calling the tax authorities and ask,
but I'm based in the Netherlands so their guidance may be different from that
in the UK.

~~~
Silhouette
Doesn't the Netherlands use the Euro? If so, then I think the information we
have been given is consistent. For you, the MSI currency would be Euro, while
for me in the UK, it would be GBP. Each of us would pay any tax due to foreign
tax authorities via our own country's MOSS in our local currency, but if we
charged a customer in a different currency then we would have to convert it in
one of the two ways I mentioned before.

------
mastef
It seems like this is actually a step in the proper direction. The removal of
'VAT based on seller country' from the system, standardizes now everything
towards 'VAT in buyers country'

Now after talking with other SaaS owners it seems we're one of the 'few' non-
EU companies that actually complies with this - however that choice is rather
due to the provider we use.

We comply with the rules by using a payment reseller ( fastspring / saasy )
which allows us to reduce accounting ( only major payments are being sent from
reseller ), and at a comparable rate to stripe ( 1-2% higher )

Since they specialise in regulations and payments, it's really a big headache
off our shoulders - plus you reduce the invoices you have to handle. Also it
removed that whole merchant account setup process etc, which was a bigger pain
for a Hong Kong based company.

~~~
toyg
_> It seems like this is actually a step in the proper direction._

No. A step in the proper direction would be admitting that VAT is a regressive
hidden tax on employees, and abolish it or replace it with more transparent
taxation of real wealth.

Until that happens, we're all just jumping through hoops so that European
politicians can tax the working man while hiding behind meaningless
"consumption" codewords.

~~~
joosters
How is VAT regressive or hidden? For a start, I'd say that just about every EU
citizen is aware of it. Plus, prices in shops _have_ to show VAT-inclusive
prices to end customers, unlike some states in the USA where sales taxes can
get magically added on to the final bill.

Secondly, it's not regressive because the more goods and services you buy, the
more you get taxed. If I buy a luxury yacht, I'll end up paying more VAT than
someone buying a toy boat. Same tax rate despite the increased bill.

Now, rich individuals may well try out all kinds of tax avoidance schemes but
that's not a problem specific to VAT...

~~~
djrogers
I'd argue that showing pre-tax prices and charging tax at checkout makes the
tax burden _much_ more obvious to most consumers. Showing only the post-tax
price on the tag hides the proportions of the tax vs item cost.

~~~
mastef
I was super-annoyed when first time in USA to find out I had to pay more at
the cashier. Also it makes products seem cheaper than they really are - it's a
cop-out to display pre-tax prices if you're billing more at the counter.

Are people shopping with a calculator?

------
bad_user
" _The change was made because EU wants to get more money from American
companies_ "

That is not true - VAT is and has always been a tax for the buyer, not the
seller. Of course, having VAT is awful for us - in my country it's an
astronomical 24%. But that's besides the point.

~~~
humanrebar
> it's an astronomical 24%

That's lower than the income tax rate for a middle class American. Why is this
rate astronomical? Are there also high property and income taxes?

EDIT: It's an honest question. I know what a VAT is, but I have no frame of
reference for how the overall tax scheme is especially egregious for the
individual taxpayer. Some other tax rates (income, property, etc.) are surely
relevant. A 24% VAT with absolutely no other taxes sounds nice, for example.

~~~
nagrom
You're comparing income tax with sales tax.

In the UK, on a salary of £40k (i.e. professional mid-career engineer), before
you touch the money, the government takes about 25% for income tax and
national insurance. Then, they take _20% of everything else that you spend_
unless it's non-luxurious foodstuffs, children's clothes or paper books. And,
of course, if what you're buying is fuel, they actually take 85% of the price.

In addition, you'll pay approximately 2% of the purchase price of a house to
the government, and you'll pay approx. one day a month in after-tax income to
the local council as a property tax.

US has a 30% tax burden, UK has a 40% tax burden. France and Germany have >50%
tax burdens. The last three have some form of nationalised healthcare though,
which the US does not.

~~~
fargolime
> The last three have some form of nationalised healthcare though, which the
> US does not.

Plus a much better retirement plan. In the US you can wake up in a hospital
after someone rear-ended you, to find you are bankrupt and going to become
homeless, even when you had the best insurance. And unless the stock market
returns 8% most people are going to have a rough retirement.

In the US you're lucky to get 3 weeks vacation a year. More than that, you
need to quit your job. In EU countries it's generally 6 weeks by gov't
mandate.

The greater taxes are probably a good deal.

~~~
colechristensen
Things which aren't true:

>In the US you can wake up in a hospital after someone rear-ended you, to find
you are bankrupt and going to become homeless, even when you had the best
insurance.

>unless the stock market returns 8% most people are going to have a rough
retirement

Your health and car insurance covers exactly what it says it covers, and
retirement plans aren't a mystery. In America you take personal responsibility
for things which are done for you in Europe; you can make the wrong choices,
but you're allowed to _make_ choices.

Vacation doesn't have much of anything to do with taxes.

~~~
gmac
Taking personal responsibility sounds all very well (leaving discussion of the
impossibility of meaningful free will for another occasion), but private
health insurance is a special kind of stupid. For example, some people are
born with diseases or disabilities that we can say with certainty will cost
millions in care over their lifetimes. Those people are obviously uninsurable.
So health systems that don't leave people to die must involve an element of
the collectivisation of risk.

~~~
xrange
>Those people are obviously uninsurable.

...if they were born to parents who had insurance they would have been
covered.

>So health systems that don't leave people to die must involve an element of
the collectivisation of risk.

...insurance is all about collectivisation of risk, is it not? You are paying
in, hoping to never collect, and the money you pay in is used to cover those
who did need it.

------
BerislavLopac
The main problem with these changes is that they require the seller to collect
information about the buyer's location. It makes all the sense for physical
goods, but it is nigh impossible for digital ones, and pretty much misses the
whole point of online economy.

In my opinion, the VAT should be charged based on the delivery address; for
digital goods, it would be ideal that all purchases are considered local, and
the countries could have an option to introduce a separate "digital VAT rate"
that would apply to such purchases.

~~~
toyg
This suggestion, in practice, would not stop Amazon and Google siphoning VAT
money form around the EU through Luxembourg, Jersey or Ireland. If I settle in
a country with low "digital VAT rate", I'll still hold an advantage over EU
companies based elsewhere: I can charge lower prices, or I can charge regular
prices and pocket the difference. This is exactly what happens today.

~~~
BerislavLopac
Nope -- what happens today is paying Luxembourg VAT for physical goods
delivered from UK to UK, which would be prevented this way. Digital goods have
no "location", so the only way to charge VAT is to assume it was a "local"
purchase. And what is wrong with countries competing with VAT rates?

Alternatively, a pan-EU VAT rate for digital goods only might be a better
approach, and probably easier to implement than a universal VAT rate.

~~~
toyg
_> what is wrong with countries competing with VAT rates?_

it's a race to the bottom that destroys tax revenues. It benefits small
"pirate" countries to the disadvantage of large ones that are actually
responsible for creating the large markets where real profits are generated.
Tax-rate competition has always existed, but globalisation and technology now
make it too easy to exploit it in a way that only benefits big business and
screws entire populations.

 _> pan-EU VAT rate for digital goods only might be a better approach_

Pan-EU rates for _most things_ would be a better approach. VAT is just the
most egregious example. If we have a single market, we should have a real
level playing field, including things like taxation, workers rights and
environmental standards. We're getting there in a number of areas, but it's
hard to make progress on tax because of political implications (and because of
pressure from businesses who benefit from the current state of affairs).

------
Ecio78
This sentence is wrong

"The change was made because EU wants to get more money from transactions for
American companies – _or to force them to move more operations to EU_ to get
VAT reductions."

and it can be understood by just comparing the table right above, where you
can see that for an American company based in the US (last three Non-EU rows)
nothing will change, so no American company would be forced to move to EU.

What's true, on the other hand, is that this law would not allow some
companies, including some big American ones (like Amazon) to take advantage of
putting their European HQ in countries with lower VAT rate, like Luxembourg
(15% til this year[1]), and so selling (invoicing) products to endusers for a
lower price.

Same can be said for right after about this exact part "a perfectly legal
strategy to pay less taxes". VAT is not paid by the company but by the private
user that buys the product/service. So they didn't pay less taxes thanks to
this, but probably sold more product. If we want to discuss about saving
taxes, we can discuss about tax rulings for this companies, though...

I am not a fiscal/economic guy but this girl got it all wrong...so I stopped
reading at this point.

[1] due to this law, Luxembourg will raise its VAT from 15% to 17% trying to
compensate the money loss caused by this change (afaik it won't be enough)

------
lotsofmangos
" _If you ask me – YES it is crazy. There are 28 member states and over 75
different VAT rates – which I should all know and create different invoices
for._ "

If only we had some sort of programmable calculating device to automate this
kind of drudgery.

~~~
Jongseong
The seller is also supposed to collect evidence of the location of the
purchaser (billing addresses, IP addresses, etc.). By the time you're required
to collect private data for each transaction, it becomes more than simply the
kind of drudgery you can automate away and becomes a burden that is a bit too
much for one-person entreprises.

~~~
lotsofmangos
Purchaser inputs details in online form, tax is applied by location, purchaser
buys thing. What am I missing here?

~~~
Jongseong
At least in the UK, you'll be required to keep such private data for 10 years,
which also means registering as data processors and controllers with the
Information Commissioner's Office. See this:
[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revenue-and-
custo...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revenue-and-customs-
brief-46-2014-vat-rule-change-and-the-vat-mini-one-stop-shop-additional-
guidance/revenue-and-customs-brief-46-2014-vat-rule-change-and-the-vat-mini-
one-stop-shop-additional-guidance#section-5-record-keeping-requirements)

Also, try explaining how simple all this is to the self-employed women selling
crafts online using PayPal.

~~~
lotsofmangos
If you are selling crafts online, you have to take a purchasers location in
order to deliver stuff. If you are doing this through your own shop, then all
the decent ecommerce backends have plugins for eu vat stuff and if you are
doing it through an existing marketplace the same applies. And I don't think
whether they are women really affects this.

~~~
Jongseong
What you are overlooking is that the vast majority of these people (and women
are disproportionately represented, including many stay-at-home mums doing
this in their spare time) did not have to deal with VAT _at all_ previously
because they never came anywhere near the VAT threshold. They have never had
to apply for it. Suddenly, they have to register and comply with not one but
two government bureaucracies, and submit quarterly statements on the VAT
collected. (By the way, the rules affect the sale of digital items, like
knitting patterns and ebooks, rather than physical goods like crafts because
the VAT threshold is being abolished on digital goods.)

~~~
lotsofmangos
Or annually with your other tax affairs if your income is less than £1.3
million.

Which means that while it has to be taken into consideration it does not
really affect stuff that much.

It is a cost of doing business in the EU and it does make things more complex,
but nowhere near as complex as before the EU came into effect.

~~~
Jongseong
No, VAT MOSS Return periods are calendar quarters, so you need to submit
quarterly statements: [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revenue-and-
custo...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revenue-and-customs-
brief-46-2014-vat-rule-change-and-the-vat-mini-one-stop-shop-additional-
guidance/revenue-and-customs-brief-46-2014-vat-rule-change-and-the-vat-mini-
one-stop-shop-additional-guidance) This has nothing to do with income. This is
because anyone who supplies digital services to other EU countries is
considered a business. Registering with a couple of government bureaucracies
(as an aside, let's see how well they can handle about a million new
registrants in 2015 assuming everyone tries to follow the new rules) and
completing quarterly VAT returns might be completely normal for small
businesses of more than a few people, but for the millions of self-employed
people who have never had to deal with any of this (and who are finding out
about the rule change only in the last few weeks) this is a nightmare.

~~~
lotsofmangos
I got the annual thing from here, I got it a bit wrong as the threshold is
turnover, not income - [https://www.gov.uk/vat-annual-accounting-
scheme/overview](https://www.gov.uk/vat-annual-accounting-scheme/overview)

 _VAT Annual Accounting Scheme_

 _You can join the scheme if your estimated VAT taxable turnover is £1.35
million or less._

~~~
Jongseong
I see. This is a scheme you can apply for once you are VAT registered and are
up to date with your VAT returns. I'm not sure how that changes things for
first-time VAT registered businesses. For businesses that have not been
registered for 12 months or more (i.e. everyone who is applying for the first
time), they can still apply but HMRC will advise the amount of the instalments
to be paid (monthly by default, quarterly also available) which are usually
supposed to be estimated based on the last year's liability. I'd be curious to
see how HMRC will react to getting applications for the VAT Annual Accounting
Scheme from all the first-time VAT registrants with very little to base their
VAT estimates on, but that wouldn't happen unless all these self-employed
people had any idea that the scheme existed.

------
chris-at
More info here: [http://rachelandrew.github.io/eu-
vat/](http://rachelandrew.github.io/eu-vat/)

------
gst
So how would this enforcement look in practice if a US company does not have
any business location within the EU? Up until now I was under the impression
that this wouldn't matter as long as you don't violate US law.

Also why should the EU be treated differently than any other of the approx.
200 other foreign countries? I'm sure lots of them have similar tax codes that
require tax payment at the location of the customer. Are those countries able
to enforce any tax payments from US businesses?

~~~
tim333
>Are those countries able to enforce any tax payments from US businesses?

Basically no unless the companies has assets where the tax is due.

------
tim333
I'd imagine for small companies in the US, if they ignore VAT nothing will
happen. There is no way the US courts will get involved with enforcing EU
taxes and EU enforcement is fairly laid back in that they are not going to
arrest you if you go on hols. If the company has assets in the EU however the
courts can go after them so Google, Amazon etc will have to pay. I fear
Digital Ocean are going to start charging me VAT which they have not so far.

------
jmnicolas
If you are concerned with this, you may want to investigate if basing your
company in Switzerland offers more advantage than in EU : its at the center of
Europe but doesn't belong to EU.

~~~
_delirium
If a company does not sell to EU citizens, then yes, being based outside in
the EU will let you avoid these rules. But if your goal is to sell to EU
consumers, basing the company in Switzerland as your European base doesn't
help, because for non-EU sellers (and from 1 January, for all sellers), VAT is
charged based on the location of the customer; the location of the company is
irrelevant. And Switzerland will generally enforce tax judgments of EU member
states, so if you violate German law in your dealings with German citizens,
being based in Switzerland isn't going to shelter you. If you sell services to
a German, you'll be required to charge German VAT rates, regardless of whether
the company is based in Germany or Switzerland.

Some larger Swiss-based companies were actually in favor of this change,
because in some cases they have been at a VAT disadvantage relative to some
EU-based companies, who were previously allowed to charge "source country"
rates rather than "destination country" rates for digital services. Therefore
Swiss providers selling to Germans were at a disadvantage to Luxembourg-based
providers selling to Germans, because the Swiss provider had to charge German
VAT, while the Luxembourg provider could charge the lower Luxembourg VAT. With
the new "destination location" rules being applied across the board, including
to EU-based companies, Luxembourg will lose its advantage vis-a-vis
Switzerland there.

See:
[http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespubl...](http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/taxnewsflash/pages/2014-1/switzerland-
opportunities-with-eu-vat-rule-change-in-2015.aspx)

~~~
throwaway78393
I run a small software development shop, registered in Switzerland. We sell
installable software in productized form. We also employ a local accounting
firm to handle our accounting and advise on taxation matters. At the moment
the state of affairs is such that we do NOT need to charge or to report VAT on
any sales unless it's a sale to a Swiss customer. I had them double-check this
and I also got a second opinion from another company. Not Swiss = No VAT,
period. So, this -

    
    
       a Swiss supplier must charge the VAT rate of the EU 
       Member State where EU consumers are domiciled or the
       services are used and enjoyed
    

doesn't correlate with reality on my end. I can only guess that the
discrepancy is due to this being specific to -

    
    
      Telecommunications and broadcasting companies, as 
      well as providers of electronic services to consumers
    

and not to installable software vendors.

------
raldi
What does the "Reverse Charge" refer to?

~~~
jkulmala
I explain that in this other post for EU guys:
[http://www.happybootstrapper.com/2014/eu-vat-changes-
online-...](http://www.happybootstrapper.com/2014/eu-vat-changes-online-
businesses-act-jan-1st/)

Reverse charge moves the VAT-paying responsibility from you to your customer
in another EU country. The responsibility can only be moved from business to
business.

You’ll write an invoice/receipt without VAT (or 0% VAT) and include a text
“Reverse charge, VAT directive art. 44” and you are done. In practice the text
is often missing, as people re-use the same invoice format they use for non-EU
sales.

------
based2
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8766738](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8766738)

------
brador
Would it be easier if there was a single EU wide VAT rate?

~~~
cbd1984
Just so you aren't confused, there is no VAT in the US, and sales tax is set
by states, not cities.

More information:

[https://www.sba.gov/content/collecting-sales-tax-over-
intern...](https://www.sba.gov/content/collecting-sales-tax-over-internet)

~~~
xrange
To further eliminate the possibilities of confusion, at least in Washington
state, there is a state-wide retail sales tax, and there are additional sales
taxes based upon the city or county where the transaction occurs. There are
over 400 different taxing regions in Washington state.

[http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOrPublication/FormBySubjec...](http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOrPublication/FormBySubject/forms_LSUAlpha.aspx)

------
zeidrich
Without abolishing VAT, what would be a way to ensure that it is properly
collected by the buyer's country without putting undue stress on small
sellers?

One thing I can think of is that you could target the payment processors. They
already have personal data about the buyer, so they should know where they are
located. Most transactions are going to be done by a credit card processing
company, or something like PayPal. In either case, the EU could deal with
those sorts of companies directly.

In that case, merchants could sell their goods without worrying about tax at
all. You buy something at a listed $100, you have 22% local tax, the credit
card company charges the buyer $122, seller doesn't have to worry about it.
Now, the seller could program some option that could estimate VAT based on
geolocation with some disclaimer that the customer will be charged for VAT by
the payment processor and are responsible for their own charges. But that
would be a courtesy of the seller, the buyer should be aware of their own VAT.

Some things are excluded from VAT, but they are the exception, and in that
case, the seller could jump through some small hoops to register with the
payment processors to allow those goods to exclude VAT.

There are still other methods of collecting payment, like bitcoin, like money
orders, whatever. In those cases, the law should require the buyer to self-
assess. In reality the self-assessment would be rarely followed, and honestly
nobody would care if it were small purchases. But the self-assessment rules
would mean that anyone seriously gaming the system by avoiding compliant
payment processing options could be punished, while still both avoiding an
less enforceable situation like trying to punish a foreign company for failure
to charge local tax, or limiting the payment options that foreign companies
can provide.

This could also solve problems with collecting VAT purchases made from foreign
entities (instead of just companies from other EU states) and could even be
extended further (You are a resident of Luxembourg, you travel and shop in
France, you pay with a credit card, you are charged less VAT on the purchase
rather than having to claim the difference when you return.)

In short, compel large payment processors to verify the home of buyers when
the account is created, compel them to have some checks to avoid fraud. Allow
sellers to not charge VAT if the buyer is either using an approved payment
processor, or if the buyer is from another country. If you are accepting
payment by cash or money order from someone local, then you must charge VAT at
the local rate. But if you are accepting a credit card through an approved
processor, whether the buyer is local or foreign, you charge the rate pre-tax,
and the processor is required to A) add the appropriate VAT, and B) verify
that the buyer is not lying about their home country. If you accept a money
order from a foreign country, you do not charge VAT, and the buyer self-
assesses.

Alternatively, you could say that all purchases that do not go through an
approved processor have the local VAT added to them, and the buyer is
compelled to self-asses for the difference, it's just a matter of how much you
are willing to inconvenience non-EU foreign countries.

But I don't think the seller should be required to ensure that the buyer
abides by their local tax rules. I do think that's a task that can be handled
by large banks or payment processors.

