|
|
|
|
|
by rdiddly
3374 days ago
|
|
I'm deliberately ignoring your point actually, because it's moot. The law is being changed to eliminate your first case (independent small suppliers) and declare those services to have been provided by a single entity (Uber). Both sides of your debate are now one. There's a certain amount of circular reasoning inherent here, because a government ministry made a declaration. It's not just an objective observation of reality, it's a declaration of what that reality will be henceforth. Was it a good decision? In my opinion yes, because it better reflects the original intent of this particular tax. Anyone trading on the brand-name of "Uber" and using Uber's infrastructure is not a small supplier (who has to build and market their own brand and build their own infrastructure). And they are clearly supplying a good or service, which was my point expressed in embryonic form above, so they can go ahead and collect the tax. |
|
My point is that Uber did not have to pay taxes, and their obligation to collect taxes was unclear. Under the new law they have the collect taxes. Under the old law, it was plausible that they didn't.
The main takeaway is that most aspects of the legal system, including definitions for commonly accepted terms, are not actually clear.
Especially your argument on intents of taxes. I don't believe that brand-name and infrastructure alone make an employee out of an independent contractor. Also, based on your brandname and infrastructure arguement, should people who sell handicrafts on Etsy or Amazon be classified as employees of Amazon and be forced to pay GST on all sales?