Resolving conflicting VAT data problem

Hi,

You’re saying that’s something you’ve tested and it doesn’t work? Or you’re asking? (It’s not something I’ve thought about or tested at this stage).

David

I believe that if the answer is “it will forbid checkout”, then that is possibly what the EU regulations require, and therefore the proper function of the setting. That’s because the EU require you to gather the evidence for *all* purchases if you are subject to the law. It’s not just “non-conflicting evidences of the buyer’s true location for purchases on which you charged VAT”. It’s “non-conflicting evidences of the buyer’s true location for all purchases” (e.g. to prove that you were correct when you declined to charge VAT).

However, I see that it could be argued that in *this* situation, two non-conflicting evidences that the buyer is not in the EU might be enough. It depends on the precise wording of the regulation. (Is it “two non-conflicting evidences of the buyer’s true location” or “two non-conflicting evidences of a non-EU location”?). If you can track down the proper line of the regulation it will move things along for those case faster…

As I read it, if your presumption of the customer evidence is he is located outside EU, then the supply falls outside the scope of EU VAT.

I presume when you write “EU countries and EU ip” for that function, that the function does not apply to countries and ips outside EU? That is why I’m asking if this is a bug, as it seems all countries and all ips are affected.

When you say “As I read it”, is there a particular line in the regulations you are referring to? What I’m saying is that this was coded around 6 years ago. I don’t have the details fresh in my head, and didn’t make notes that resolve this precise question of two non-EU pieces of data that conflict on the specifics but agree on the “non-EU” part. Thus, to work out exactly what was needed, we need to locate the precise wording from the EU statute, which will be published online (they all are).

N.B. The EU do require *all* sales (i.e. to all countries) to have audit-ready data, not just ones on which VAT was not charged (for whatever reason). The question is over exactly what the scope of ‘non-conflicting’ is.

Ok, I guess some changes has happened since then.

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/telecommunications-broadcasting-electronic-services/sites/mossportal/files/explanatory_notes_2015_en_0.pdf

Page 49 “5.5.2 How should a supplier treat a customer established outside the EU?”

And I’m under the 100.000 euro, so I only need 1 evidence. But 2 is fine.

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/vat/telecommunications-broadcasting-electronic-services/sites/mossportal/files/what_is_new_as_of_2019.pdf

Hi,

i.e. You’re saying that in your case, you don’t actually need the conflict resolution anyway?

David

No, personally I don’t need 2 non-conflicting evidences, as with the 2019 changes I can do with one – in my case.
The reason I’m asking is that I have seen some returning customers with billing addresses outside EU, but always checkout with the same EU ip. So I have to presume they live in EU and they are trying to avoid paying VAT. Every time that happens, I’m the one who has to cover that VAT charge with the payment setup I have.
I could settle with an option that would force VAT on all checkouts on customers who are using an EU IP.

Can you not accomplish what you want by using the setting “Always use the WooCommerce tax settings to indicate the country (never ask the customer)” for “Resolving conflicting VAT data” ?

So, if you have set WooCommerce to base tax on the customer’s billing country, then if that’s in the EU (e.g. they’re using an EU-registered credit card) there’ll be VAT liable (no option to self-certify that you’re actually non-EU because your IP is elsewhere).

David

No, that will not use the customers IP to calculate VAT.

Doing it that way round, taking the IP address as sole evidence, is incompatible with EU VAT regulations, and so is out of scope for this plugin.

IP is evidence. It’s in the EU regulation.
Even my CC bank provide data based on EU customers IPs for tax reports for my accountant.

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/information_microbusinesses_euvat_2015_en.pdf

Under 2.1.1 and 2.1.3.

Note that the sections you’ve listed state that an IP address is a valid single piece of evidence in a context where two are required, which is as I said in my previous comment that it is not sufficient by itself.

Yes, and it all comes down to presumption.

The two evidence threshold is set at EURO 100.000 as of the 2019 changes as I linked to. I’m way under that.
“As soon as the threshold is exceeded during a calendar year, the normal rules apply, meaning that again two pieces of evidence are required.”

But I think we got a bit off track here. So to get back to my original question.
You already have the function in place (Resolving conflicting VAT data). If that is set to “Forbid checkout entirely” it works. But the problem is that it is also blocks for purchases even if the evidence shows the customers are out side EU. So the EU rules are no longer applied to the customer – but they still get blocked.
That should not happen.

Please can you give a specific example to help me to make sure I am fully understanding your last paragraph?