Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Fergie

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Fergie's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (2/5)

  1. Fergie

    Exciting

    no Toni (sorry, an old joke)
  2. "Business to business sales not exceeding £135 in value will also be subject to the new rules. However, where the business customer is VAT registered in the UK and provides its valid VAT registration number to the seller, the VAT will be accounted for by the customer by means of a reverse charge." Which implies that the reverse charge is only available to VAT registered companies. The issue is that EU companies will have to pay to register and then will pay VAT to HMRC in order to be able to continue supplying their UK customers who are not VAT registered. They will be turned into unpaid tax collectors for a foreign country. Can you imagine the Daily Mail headlines if small uk companies were forced to register and pay tax directly to the German authorities!!! I will report back on a couple of orders in progress.
  3. Yes, it's important to pay tax. But forcing eu companies to register and pay directly to HMRC seems beyond what can reasonably be expected, hence the words quoted from the Dutch company. I received a similar message from a non-violin-related company in the middle of last year who flatly refused to deliver to the uk. Apologies if I have missed something fundamental, I'm not an economist. From the govt webpage: "For goods sent from overseas and sold directly to UK consumers without online marketplace involvement, the overseas seller will be required to register and account for the VAT to HMRC." "Business to business sales not exceeding £135 in value will also be subject to the new rules. However, where the business customer is VAT registered in the UK and provides its valid VAT registration number to the seller, the VAT will be accounted for by the customer by means of a reverse charge." So it looks as if small UK businesses who do not meet the VAT threshold (of which there must be plenty) may or will experience difficulty in obtaining supplies from the EU and will be forced unfairly to register for VAT.
  4. Slightly off-topic, but directly concerning supply of goods from EU and anywhere else overseas to the uk https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-vat-treatment-of-overseas-goods-sold-to-customers-from-1-january-2021/changes-to-vat-treatment-of-overseas-goods-sold-to-customers-from-1-january-2021 From a Dutch bike parts company: "Unfortunately, we will not be able to send parcels to the UK from mid December 2020 onward. Quite apart from uncertainty surrounding the shipping cost, taxation etc. after that time, there is also a problem caused by the British government deciding to impose a unique taxation regime which will require every company in the world in every country in the world outside the UK which exports to the UK to apply and collect British taxes on behalf of the British government. For providing this service they intend to charge a fee to every company in the world in every country in the world which exports to the UK. Clearly this is ludicrous for one country, but imagine if every country in the world had the same idea. If every country decided to behave in the same way then we would have to pay 195 fees every year, keep up with the changes in taxation law for 195 different countries, keep accounts on behalf of 195 different countries and submit payments to 195 tax offices in 195 different countries, and jump through whatever hoops were required to prove that we were doing all of this honestly and without any error. Therefore from mid December 2020 onward we ship to every country in the world... except the UK." So it's bye-bye to supplies from Europe, then? it is clear now that overseas firms are forced to register with HMRC, collect VAT then remit it to HMRC if they want to sell to UK customers.
  5. Is the violin by Sebastian Klotz? Or any member of the Klotz family? Never trust an instrument on the label alone. Would expect far finer work from any Klotz maker. $5k for restoration is optimistic!
  6. This invoicing app may be well worth a look despite its improbable name - and it's free! https://getalbert.com/
  7. At university there is always the risk of catching intellectually transmitted diseases
  8. What kind of fools does Bristow think we are? It is insulting that Bristow is now trying to look like the good guy before he has even started to take hold of the situation. I note that he has offered no public apology to Mr Harte for distress and possible harm which may be being caused to him. There has NOT been ONE SINGLE VOICE in his (Bristow's) support. There is nothing to discuss. This is not a specialist violin matter. This is about the ethic and fallout of trading in falsely labelled goods. It is about seeing the bigger picture in respect of the future life of this violin. It will be sold many times again. The good thing is that people have concern for their colleague, Mr Harte, and for the standing of the trade in general, and have taken the trouble through this forum to alert Bristow to the mislabelling. Bristow now has the chance to do something honourable and to change the course of events. With very little trouble. Bristow is educated enough to understand the consequence of his actions. It is not about the bvma's authority. It is about a dealer's personal ethic which stands for all to see. Take responsibility! REPEAT: it is not the bvma's remit to deal with things like this. Never was. It has better things to do. If the label is removed the price of the violin should be reduced as the instrument becomes, once again, unequivocally, what it always was. Is this perhaps what is preventing Bristow from doing the decent thing? If it is left in Bristow takes the consequence of losing the respect of his colleagues and of receiving further action from any affected party.
  9. The thrust of Mr Bristow’s own posting seems somewhat confused. He defends his right to sell a violin bearing a false label (on the grounds that he has NEVER removed a label in 24 years – perhaps now would be a good time to start?), while sideslipping into observing sternly that ‘this sort of thing seems to be on the increase’, and ‘something needs to be done about it’ . Perhaps he would be good enough to take the first step towards the ‘transparency’ he claims (on his website) to espouse, by ‘outing’ whoever it is he believes labelled and originally sold the violin in question. As for offering this item from his stock as a ‘catalyst for further discussion’, is discussion necessary? What are the issues? Opinion seems unanimous amongst honest people that for a dealer to sell violins mislabelled as by a living maker is not a good idea. End of story. It is not ‘in situations like this’, i.e. to get involved with sloppy trading, that the BVMA was formed. (By the way, Mr B is not a member, at present, of the BVMA.) The BVMA exists, by its own account, in order • *to raise the standard of skill and expertise of makers and restorers • *to share information among makers and restorers • *to promote the craft to the general public • *to promote fellowship among all those interested in violins and bows And it is presumably regarded as the members’ own responsibility, mainly, to ensure the above criteria are implemented. Mr Bristow knows exactly what to do to resolve his situation. It couldn’t be simpler. Mr Bristow, is it wise or accurate to describe a collection of more or less unanimous opinions from your colleagues about the ethic and consequence of your action as a 'Kangaroo Court', which in my understanding is a court which has abandoned the basic principles of justice? Your misuse of the term is quite insulting to kangaroos. For a dealer, who depends on the trust of his clients, to offer an instrument mis-labelled in this way is a betrayal of the clients and of the maker whose name he allows to be associated with an inferior instrument. The only place where mislabelled instruments are regularly expected to be found is within the cataloguing of violin auction houses, where the clientele and the selling dynamic are totally different and the buyer is expected to have the knowledge and discernment to filter out such mislabelling (and where there exists a clearly defined vocabulary for the various levels of certainty in attribution). It is not acceptable for someone dealing with the innocent public to offer stock mislabelled in the name of a living maker, whether it is for the purpose of mild or total deception. Even if it is not Mr B’s intention to deceive, totally, he cannot answer for the next dealer to handle the violin who might not be so scrupulous. It is the practise of at least one top dealer to remove any false label from even top quality old Italian instruments and to replace it with an obvious facsimile of the label of the ‘correct’ maker of that instrument. This seems a good and clear solution. It would be a great step forward to have a channel for legally dealing with this sort of behaviour – but I wonder if the finer points are even covered by present law. If the bvma are prepared to air the question, then with some specialist legal input and a great deal of common sense a code of practise could be drawn up to which dealers would be expected to voluntarily adhere, and would give their customers a level of trust.
  10. I'm also a new member. Thanks for this post. I notice that clicking on the link you give to 'romwald-invest.ro' brings up a virus warning on my computer. Others beware! regards, Fergie
×
×
  • Create New...