# Reverb to collect CDN sales tax



## dmc69 (Jan 20, 2011)

Yes it's nothing new (USA folks had to pay taxes for a while now) but it's still dumb to pay taxes on something already taxed or taxes on a private sale.


----------



## TheGASisReal (Mar 2, 2020)

Aaaaaand that concludes my participation in the reverb marketplace. Raising their fees was almost enough to make me go elsewhere.. Applying taxes to used items is too much. I didn't think this was required unless you sold above like 20K per year of goods.

Looks like I'll be sticking to GC/kijiji until our government forces us to move to a digital currency 

Sent from my SM-G781W using Tapatalk


----------



## mawmow (Nov 14, 2017)

Yep ! They sadly got that virus too...

We talk about recycling and social economy, but we kill the thing !


----------



## dmc69 (Jan 20, 2011)

TheGASisReal said:


> Aaaaaand that concludes my participation in the reverb marketplace. Raising their fees was almost enough to make me go elsewhere.. Applying taxes to used items is too much. I didn't think this was required unless you sold above like 20K per year of goods.
> 
> Looks like I'll be sticking to GC/kijiji until our government forces us to move to a digital currency
> 
> Sent from my SM-G781W using Tapatalk


I've been increasingly using FB marketplace too. I thought I'd never have to use that cesspool of a marketplace, but here I am.


----------



## David Graves (Apr 5, 2017)

I couldn't afford Reverb prices already. It'll be even worse in a week.lol


----------



## CMCRAWFORD (Mar 17, 2014)

I just saw that email. So I wonder what "eligible orders" will be. Looks like I will not be buying a used item via Reverb anymore. I am not paying tax on something that was taxed when purchased new. Selling via reverb will be even more difficult for the same reason. People will want to see price drops to compensate the tax they have to pay.


----------



## CMCRAWFORD (Mar 17, 2014)

TheGASisReal said:


> I didn't think this was required unless you sold above like 20K per year of goods.


Looks like Reverb will add the tax, collect and submit to CRA. If you sell over $30k a year you are expected to register for a GST/HST ID. Then you would add that ID to your profile and Reverb would not collect the tax on your behalf.


----------



## BlueRocker (Jan 5, 2020)

If that's the case I won't be making any more Reverb purchases, nor selling there.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

This is such a crap chute for the feds. Digital marketplaces have facilitated quasi private sales of goods for so long under the radar that everyone just tra la la'd their way through it. Problem is, when you have Reverb or Ebay or whomever facilitating the transaction it is no longer a private sale and here we are. I am frankly surprised it took the gubbament this long to catch on to the abusive tax collection they are missing.

Sad times.

On another note... 'member when the internet was going to dawn a new age of human compassion, understanding and community 🤣


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

This sucks, but I can see why governments are doing this. In short, there are too many people who make a lot of money selling stuff but never claim the money as income. It would seem that Kijiji, Facebook, [insert website name here] will eventually be asked to do this too. Here's to the return of cash local deals! cheers


----------



## DaddyDog (Apr 21, 2017)

Huge disappointment. I saw an ad that mentioned this was coming, but couldn't find proof. @dmc69 where did you see that?


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

DaddyDog said:


> Huge disappointment. I saw an ad that mentioned this was coming, but couldn't find proof. @dmc69 where did you see that?


Reverb sent me an email today with all this info. I am assuming DMC69 received the same email.


----------



## audiorep2 (Mar 28, 2009)

Next step is the feds will have check out booths at guitar shows .


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

Ya. Its honestly difficult to understand how Reverb stays in business long term with something like this on top of their relatively expensive fees. I've been a user/advocate for years, but it would be very difficult to justify using them going forward in most circumstances now. Luckily, cash is king and private sale is a thing.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

So, just to play devils advocate here... how come it is no one minds paying the tax on used equipment at a retailer like L&M and the like? What makes online a different sphere?


----------



## TTHX (May 24, 2013)

Saw the email today. Really unfortunate as I'll pretty much stop using the service now but I understand. Kijiji and Facebook (ugh) only now.



Mark Brown said:


> So, just to play devils advocate here... how come it is no one minds paying the tax on used equipment at a retailer like L&M and the like? What makes online a different sphere?


In store you can play it in person and there's a 90 return warranty. Brick and mortar can actually verify and make sure things are working whereas Reverb is just a digital middle-man with no added bonus other than convenience.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

Mark Brown said:


> So, just to play devils advocate here... how come it is no one minds paying the tax on used equipment at a retailer like L&M and the like? What makes online a different sphere?


Im going to be honest. I've never bought used gear from a retailer lol


----------



## dmc69 (Jan 20, 2011)

Mark Brown said:


> So, just to play devils advocate here... how come it is no one minds paying the tax on used equipment at a retailer like L&M and the like? What makes online a different sphere?


Good point. I also feel like it's robbery on used sales due to double/triple/x taxation. 

I guess I justify it because it's business vs personal sales, and the stores provide extra services on top of the sale (warranty, returns, advice, etc...).


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

dmc69 said:


> Good point. I also feel like it's robbery on used sales due to double/triple/x taxation.
> 
> I guess I justify it because it's business vs personal sales, and the stores provide extra services on top of the sale (warranty, returns, advice, etc...).


Albeit reduced, so does reverb. Returns are facilitated because of the platform, as well as a degree of seller responsibility as well as payments.

I would argue that only reverbs fees should be taxed as they are the only "product" that is generated in the transaction. That would make sense to me. I get thats not going to happen.

Problem is when do you go from "private seller" with a guitar to sell to a business that sells used guitars. Governments are blunt and really missed an opportunity to work with the medium as opposed to garnering the biggest tax base while subsequently killing a portion of the service. At least that is my opinion.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

I'm noticing "I'm quitting eBay/Reverb for Facebook/Kijiji. Do you guys really think those aren't going to start seeing CRA action too?


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

Okay Player said:


> I'm noticing "I'm quitting eBay/Reverb for Facebook/Kijiji. Do you guys really think those aren't going to start seeing CRA action too?


Private sale forums like Kijiji and this website will be VERY difficult/impossible to regulate. Why? Because there's no actual verifiable sales occurring on the platforms themselves. They're moreso social forums where conversations take place that could potentially lead to sales in private (this can only really be confirmed by the parties involved). Theres an infinite number of these types of sites that you could create, too. The only real check would be if the government eliminated physical cash and developed the capacity to monitor digital transactions. I think we're a very long time away from that.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> Private sale forums like Kijiji and this website will be VERY difficult/impossible to regulate. Why? Because there's no actual verifiable sales occurring on the platforms themselves. They're moreso social forums that potentially lead to sales that can only really be confirmed by the parties involved.


It's as simple as sending the people a threatening letter and then "making an example" of a handful of people. The government already has people who scroll the mentioned platforms looking for trouble anyways.


----------



## audiorep2 (Mar 28, 2009)

When I think about it more , about 1/2 of what I buy on Reverb comes from the US , so I'm getting dinged GST/HST by Canada Post etc anyway . Sucks for local biz though .


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

Okay Player said:


> I'm noticing "I'm quitting eBay/Reverb for Facebook/Kijiji. Do you guys really think those aren't going to start seeing CRA action too?


I would think it would be all but impossible to implement seeing as the actual transactions are conducted privately.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Okay Player said:


> I'm noticing "I'm quitting eBay/Reverb for Facebook/Kijiji. Do you guys really think those aren't going to start seeing CRA action too?


Post #10 lol 😂


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Mark Brown said:


> I would think it would be all but impossible to implement seeing as the actual transactions are conducted privately.


Until buyers start demanding everything is done ‘on site’ so they have a verifiable record of transaction if things go south.


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

I’ve never seen something I want new or used on Reverb that wasn’t 127% of the retail price before exchange, an overpriced fixed shipping rate duties more duties and then a 3-7 week wait.

Reverb can have fucked off long ago without my knowing.

Better luck looking for the item on a private browser and actually seeing local US retailers results and then negotiating shipping with them.


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

Okay Player said:


> It's as simple as sending the people a threatening letter and then "making an example" of a handful of people. The government already has people who scroll the mentioned platforms looking for trouble anyways.


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

HighNoon said:


> Three/five years tops, if the overall patterns of surveillance continue. The bankers are ready to roll with it (think of all the savings without brick and mortar and employees to support); people's movements were tracked the last two years through their phones; the public voluntarily gave up their DNA in swabs and tests; how many already work from home, eliminating the need for movement; social distancing has implanted the fear neurosis of closeness/community, and like a stone thrown in a pond, will vibrate outwards; a growing lack of goods in general, and of course food, will begin to extinguish what remains of the citizen's sense of independence. And when things get real bad, who will be there to lend a helping hand with UBI, and food and social credits so you can have a piece of your life back. Don't worry, just press star when you receive your notification. We have all your details securely in place. Have a nice day.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

traynor_garnet said:


> Until buyers start demanding everything is done ‘on site’ so they have a verifiable record of transaction if things go south.


On site where? It isnt like Facebook or Kijiji are going to open brokerage houses in every major Canadian city to facilitate private transactions. They would.... oh wait, you mean payment through Facebook and kijiji, like eBay and reverb. That makes way more sense. Yeah I can see that maybe happening


----------



## teleboli (Aug 19, 2009)




----------



## xfitxl (May 2, 2018)

TheGASisReal said:


> Aaaaaand that concludes my participation in the reverb marketplace. Raising their fees was almost enough to make me go elsewhere.. Applying taxes to used items is too much. I didn't think this was required unless you sold above like 20K per year of goods.
> 
> Looks like I'll be sticking to GC/kijiji until our government forces us to move to a digital currency
> 
> Sent from my SM-G781W using Tapatalk


no end to government greed that in turn feeds corporate greed.. and they blame one another while the average joe pays taxes upon taxes… it’s gotten ludicrous to say the least


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

Guncho said:


> View attachment 423597


Is what it is. Ottawa is a small city without many secrets:









‘Project Wide Awake’: How the RCMP Watches You on Social Media | The Tyee


Exclusive: How police are using new software to expand surveillance of citizens’ activities.




thetyee.ca













‘You Have Zero Privacy’ Says an Internal RCMP Presentation. Inside the Force’s Web Spying Program | The Tyee


‘Project Wide Awake’ files obtained by The Tyee show efforts to secretly buy and use powerful surveillance tools while downplaying capabilities.




thetyee.ca


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

Okay Player said:


> Is what it is. Ottawa is a small city without many secrets:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's very different from "The government already has people who scroll the mentioned platforms looking for trouble anyways."


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

Guncho said:


> That's very different from "The government already has people who scroll the mentioned platforms looking for trouble anyways."


How would you characterize the RCMP having a "Tactical internet operational" group who's job is to monitor social media in order to investigate and prevent crime? That's without even addressing CSEC.


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

Okay Player said:


> How would you characterize the RCMP having a "Tactical internet operational" group who's job is to monitor social media in order to investigate and prevent crime? That's without even addressing CSEC.


They have computer programs that can search through public facing people social media posts when there is an active investigation. You made it sound like they have live people sitting around whose sole job is scrolling social media looking for trouble.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

Guncho said:


> They have computer programs that can search through public facing people social media posts when there is an active investigation. You made it sound like they have live people sitting around whose sole job is scrolling social media looking for trouble.


We'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

Guncho said:


> They have computer programs that can search through public facing people social media posts when there is an active investigation. You made it sound like they have live people sitting around whose sole job is scrolling social media looking for trouble.


I scroll social media with the sole purpose of causing trouble, does that count?


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

Okay Player said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree.


I reread the article and yes of course they are monitoring anything they can get access to. Obviously the larger social media platforms would get more attention.


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

Mark Brown said:


> I scroll social media with the sole purpose of causing trouble, does that count?


Troll


----------



## jellodog (Jul 18, 2021)

I suppose collecting sales tax was inevitable. I get it; it's the law and all.

At the same time, it's a shame for relatively low value purchases like pedals. I've enjoyed being able to try out pedals and sell them with an "acceptable" loss on the used market and Reverb has been useful for that.

Of course that will still be possible after July 1st, but 15% (In Québec here) on top of transaction fees, shipping etc., is going to make it not worth the while for the smalltime hobbiest (i.e. not a business) sellers or buyers. And I personally do not want to be doing paperwork for a hobby.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

TheGASisReal said:


> Aaaaaand that concludes my participation in the reverb marketplace. Raising their fees was almost enough to make me go elsewhere.. Applying taxes to used items is too much. I didn't think this was required unless you sold above like 20K per year of goods.
> 
> Looks like I'll be sticking to GC/kijiji until our government forces us to move to a digital currency
> 
> Sent from my SM-G781W using Tapatalk


This was already in effect in the USA for a couple years now. Up here we didn't notice because the borders were closed and no one was ordering parcels and going across the border to pick them up. But yeah, Reverb has collected State sales tax based on the shipping destination for a while now. 

I do find this policy weird to be applied to Canadian cross border transactions though because usually the duty of tax collection falls on the courier. So watch we are going to have Reverb collect tax and then the courier will also charge tax on delivery. Also Reverb's warning to sellers to make sure they file etc is going to completely eliminate any of the few USA based sellers that actually will ship here.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

Anyone spouting about government conspiracy and monitoring would probably feel differently if they'd ever have worked for any level of government. Honestly you guys have no idea how little funding there is for ANYTHING in the public service. Most units are cut so close to the bone that one person away almost cripples operations. When I worked for one Federal department I spent a whole day in the store room with a toolbox stripping the junked chairs of usable parts so that I could make a few good chairs from several broken ones because there was no budget for replacement office equipment. 

I marvel at these paranoid delusions about our government because they're simply not competent enough to pull any of it off.


----------



## Tresise (Apr 26, 2021)

Mark Brown said:


> So, just to play devils advocate here... how come it is no one minds paying the tax on used equipment at a retailer like L&M and the like? What makes online a different sphere?


Correct me if I’m wrong but, If you buy a used item at LM they back it and I believe offer a warranty on the item as well, try initiating a service/warranty claim through reverb!

_edit_ just saw others replied with this as well, was reading in order and clicked reply before finishing the entire thread


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Happy Canada Day... more taxes!


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> Anyone spouting about government conspiracy and monitoring would probably feel differently if they'd ever have worked for any level of government. Honestly you guys have no idea how little funding there is for ANYTHING in the public service. Most units are cut so close to the bone that one person away almost cripples operations. When I worked for one Federal department I spent a whole day in the store room with a toolbox stripping the junked chairs of usable parts so that I could make a few good chairs from several broken ones because there was no budget for replacement office equipment.
> 
> I marvel at these paranoid delusions about our government because they're simply not competent enough to pull any of it off.


Not when you blow billions on bullshit outside your own country.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

Brian Johnston said:


> Not when you blow billions on bullshit outside your own country.


International aid was 1.6% of Canada's 2021 spend. We lose 3 times that in unpaid taxes every year. If you want to attack why we're short on cash, it's not the poor nations we help but the rich we let get away with not paying their fair share.


----------



## dodgechargerfan (Mar 22, 2006)

Tresise said:


> Correct me if I’m wrong but, If you buy a used item at LM they back it and I believe offer a warranty on the item as well, try initiating a service/warranty claim through reverb!
> 
> _edit_ just saw others replied with this as well, was reading in order and clicked reply before finishing the entire thread


Taxes don’t pay for that though.
In fact collecting taxes (again) costs L&M in administrative labour.

Now, if they offered that warranty service as an add-on to a used item sale, I’d expect to pay taxes on that service because “Goods and SERVICES tax”.

I agree with what others have said here, the sales taxes were collected on the initial sale. There should be no tax on selling used gear.

I‘m not against paying taxes, but taxing something that has already been taxed just doesn’t compute.

Someone earlier mentioned income tax. That’s not this. 
If the seller reaches the threshold that triggers the need for a tax I’d, then they’ll be paying income tax on their net profits. Another tax on something that has been taxed more than once already.
The sales tax is collected on every sale through the various buy and sell platforms.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

LowWatt said:


> International aid was 1.6% of Canada's 2021 spend. We lose 3 times that in unpaid taxes every year. If you want to attack why we're short on cash, it's not the poor nations we help but the rich we let get away with not paying their fair share.


You help your own country before you help others. When you are strong (which we are not), then you are more ABLE to help others.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

LowWatt said:


> the rich we let get away with not paying their fair share


Lawmakers are the one's to blame here.
They built loopholes into the tax code that the rich take advantage of.
Why, you ask? Politicians are rich people too.


----------



## LowWatt (Jun 27, 2007)

laristotle said:


> Lawmakers are the one's to blame here.
> They built loopholes into the tax code that the rich take advantage of.
> Why, you ask? Politicians are rich people too.


This is very true, but that's all in addition to the number I cited. The number I had is on taxes still legally owed even after they took advantage of wealthy benefiting loopholes.

If we add in how much cash we're missing out on because of technically legal but very questionable tax loopholes, that would bring the amount our country is robbed by its wealthiest from the $24 billion a year they currently legally owe but don't pay to about $44 billion a year.

Having said all that, back to the topic. This change on Reverb on used stuff is a gross double dip on goods that have already been taxed that takes away the last bit of incentive i had to use that platform.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

LowWatt said:


> This is very true, but that's all in addition to the number I cited. The number I had is on taxes still legally owed even after they took advantage of wealthy benefiting loopholes.
> 
> If we add in how much cash we're missing out on because of technically legal but very questionable tax loopholes, that would bring the amount our country is robbed by its wealthiest from the $24 billion a year they currently legally owe but don't pay to about $44 billion a year.
> 
> Having said all that, back to the topic. This change on Reverb on used stuff is a gross double dip on goods that have already been taxed that takes away the last bit of incentive i had to use that platform.


Not enough tax money overall... they give away tens of billions monthly. And then spend even more on foolishness (not to mention booze and caviar on their bullshit flights to talk about how they're going to change the world... with out money).


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

The more I look into this, the less it makes sense.

Tax does not appear to be collectible/reportable on the sale of used personal use property under the stated $1000 threshold between private individuals residing in Canada. Also, even if the item is over the $1000 threshold, you would have to make a profit off of the item being sold in order for it to be reportable as a gain and to make it taxable. If a commercial entity was involved or the private individual engaged in total sales over $30000 within 12 months, then its a different story. However, it would be illegal not to report this and that's why laws and enforcement agency's exist. Also, if Reverb directly manufactured, sold, warehoused and/or shipped/handled the item or if the transaction was cross-border, it would be a different story. But, in the case of two parties who are private (non-corporate) entities living in Canada and the item is a used personal use item under $1000/over $1000 but for which you are not making a profit or exceeding the $30000 reporting limit AND for which duty/tax was already collected upon initial importation/purchase, how can anything be taxable beyond services rendered if noone else is involved? It atleast seems like, in this given scenario, the only reasonable taxation would be on the 7.7% fee that Reverb collects for their services. How does tax on the entire value of the purchase make any sense? Seems like a misreading of the legislation.


----------



## BlueRocker (Jan 5, 2020)

All I know is, I may find it on Reverb, but I'm buying some other way.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

My brain can't leave this one alone. I had to reach out to Reverb. It makes zero sense.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> My brain can't leave this one alone. I had to reach out to Reverb. It makes zero sense.


As far as the feds are concerned the transaction is what they are taxing because reverb collects the money and distributes it. They are solely responsible for the sale. Just because they are not in possession of the item does not change the fact that they are responsible for the transaction.

Point of Sale is all they are about. 

It is a rather unfortunate grey area where markets like Ebay and Reverb are concerned, however one will find the reasoning rather straight forward even though it is entirely not to ones liking.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

But the transaction isn't taxable in its current state in any other form. Why would the involvement of a 3rd party that acts as a secure go-between that has zero interaction with the item change anything beyond taxation on services rendered? That seems absurd.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> But the transaction isn't taxable in its current state in any other form. Why would the involvement of a 3rd party that acts as a secure go-between that has zero interaction with the item change anything beyond taxation on services rendered? That seems absurd.


Because the transaction is no longer a private sale and is facilitated by Reverb who are a commercial enterprise. The sale that is made on platform is for the item, there is no way to get around that. The fact that a private seller is providing the item does not change the fact that it is sold on platform. 

It is easier to think of it in terms of commission in regards to the business model that Reverb run. When you take a guitar to a local shop to sell, they sell it in house and you are given a percentage of the sale, however that sale was still taxed. Reverb is offering nothing different, they just have a different medium to carry it out. 

I hate it as much as you do, not that I shop reverb, but the rules are what they are.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

Mark Brown said:


> Because the transaction is no longer a private sale and is facilitated by Reverb who are a commercial enterprise. The sale that is made on platform is for the item, there is no way to get around that. The fact that a private seller is providing the item does not change the fact that it is sold on platform.
> 
> It is easier to think of it in terms of commission in regards to the business model that Reverb run. When you take a guitar to a local shop to sell, they sell it in house and you are given a percentage of the sale, however that sale was still taxed. Reverb is offering nothing different, they just have a different medium to carry it out.
> 
> I hate it as much as you do, not that I shop reverb, but the rules are what they are.


To me, the consignment example falls into the same realm and is equally nonsensical beyond taxation on services rendered. I get it if the company owns the product at some point and directly sells a particular dollar value per year/profits off of the item according to the stated thresholds (via direct sale). But, if they're offering a service that facilitates the secure sale of personal use items between private individuals that wouldn't otherwise be taxable and those individuals directly deal with one another in terms of negotiation, shipping, product info, etc; thats a different story. I suppose tax law is just arbitrary and set based off of need/tolerance and it depends on your interpretation of the service being offered.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

The government should encourage reselling to help the environment not taxing it.


----------



## Hammerhands (Dec 19, 2016)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> To me, the consignment example falls into the same realm and is equally nonsensical beyond taxation on services rendered. I get it if the company owns the product at some point and directly sells a particular dollar value per year/profits off of the item according to the stated thresholds (via direct sale). But, if they're offering a service that facilitates the secure sale of personal use items between private individuals that wouldn't otherwise be taxable and those individuals directly deal with one another in terms of negotiation, shipping, product info, etc; thats a different story. I suppose tax law is just arbitrary and set based off of need/tolerance and it depends on your interpretation of the service being offered.


You wouldn't expect to pay tax at the Vintage Guitar Show, but they offer the place, time and table [and sense of security] for the transaction.

That's a good analogy? An online vintage guitar show?


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

Hammerhands said:


> You wouldn't expect to pay tax at the Vintage Guitar Show, but they offer the place, time and table [and sense of security] for the transaction.
> 
> That's a good analogy? An online vintage guitar show?


Or a more secure/safe Kijiji. Theres often even an in-person pick-up/delivery option for local purchases directly from the private seller on Reverb. So the item is owned by the private seller, I negotiate with the private seller, all of the information I receive is from the private seller and shipping/pick-up/delivery is organized with the private seller; with Reverb being responsible for safely/securely coordinating transfer of funds in these types of transactions. Separately, they also do commercial business for which tax is collected by the selling company and/or at the port of entry.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

I don't know if you are missing the point in all of this but the second we put reverb between My money and You, or Your money and Me, it is no longer a private transaction. 

There was no one at the guitar show collecting money for the buyers, nor is there anyone facilitating sales on Kijiji.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

Mark Brown said:


> I don't know if you are missing the point in all of this but the second we put reverb between My money and You, or Your money and Me, it is no longer a private transaction.
> 
> There was no one at the guitar show collecting money for the buyers, nor is there anyone facilitating sales on Kijiji.


There is though. PayPal and E-transfers through commercial banks are the first things that come to mind. Also, why would it change anything? The item in its current state is either taxable or not. Why is it all of a sudden taxable because a third party provides a one-stop secure service to two private parties who are, mostly, strangers and attempting to safely complete a transaction with one another for an item that wouldn't be taxable if I used one website to coordinate a sale and, then, a commercial bank who profits off of secure transactions to transfer funds? Tax the service, sure. But taxing the item seems like an arbitrary and inconsistent application.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

Financial services are not sales transactions.

I cannot really explain it any better than I have. Fundamentally your argument is sound, unfortunately the way the tax code is written, your argument is moot.

There is no dispensation made for "used" goods. They are just tangible personal property.





__





GST/HST for digital economy businesses: Overview - Canada.ca


Overview and types of businesses affected by the application of the GST/HST to e-commerce




www.canada.ca


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

Mark Brown said:


> Financial services are not sales transactions.
> 
> I cannot really explain it any better than I have. Fundamentally your argument is sound, unfortunately the way the tax code is written, your argument is moot.
> 
> ...


I understand what you're saying and accept that this will end up being the explanation. However, its difficult to accept without issue when you logically break it down and notice the nonsensical inconsistencies:

-Two private citizens physically complete an in-person transaction for personal use property under the $1000 threshold/over the $1000 threshold without realizing a profit and dont exceed the $30000 sales limit - No problem
-Do the same thing but coordinate it on Kijiji and utilize PayPal or for-profit commercial banking e-transfer - No problem, even if you include all of the purchase info/details in the transfer notes (its a service to the private parties, not a sale) and directly notify the CRA.
-Do the same thing that you did on Kijiji and PayPal/E-transfer with the same individuals, same circumstances and same item but solely on Reverb (literally use the same payment service via PayPal or my actual bank card with the same payment info as above) - thats a sale and not a service and its no longer a transaction between private individuals for personal use property despite the fact that the item is owned by the private seller, I negotiate with the private seller, all of the information I receive is from the private seller, shipping/pick-up/delivery/returns (including the terms) are organized with the private seller and the entire sale amount minus a 7.7% service fee (for placement on the site and the securing of the transaction) is forwarded to the private seller.

It just seems like, when it comes to anything digital, the government has no idea what to do and are making things up as they go along to try to offset the current economic trajectory. Hard not to see renewable 100% taxation being a thing in the near future at this rate.





__





Personal-use property - Canada.ca


Personal-use property




www.canada.ca









__





Definitions for capital gains - Canada.ca


A glossary of technical terms used in our Web pages on capital gains.




www.canada.ca


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

I still maintain that while what you say is correct in those sets of circumstances, once that transaction is at the behest of a third party (reverb) it no longer qualifies. The problem is no one paid it much mind for so long.

I would whole heartedly accept that in a perfectly functioning system two private individuals should be able to facilitate a sale on Reverb and have the transaction service fee be the only logically taxed product. That makes perfect sense. The problem then becomes identifying every individual that meets that criteria and insuring that it is not abused. To be entirely fair to the Gubbament (shudder) this is how it was supposed to be and why it was such a grey area for so long. In reality, the legality was never muddled at all however there are scores of private sellers who in fact are running business this way and keeping their revenue off the books. This is why they needed a blanket change.

At what point does an individual become a business, or to phrase it better, when does the selling of personal use property become a business. Who is going to monitor for that?

The easiest and most straight forward approach is to utilize preexisting tax law and make a legal ammendment to have platform selling fall under it.

I know you understand the argument for it, just as much as I understand the argument against it. We can both 100% agree it sucks and is shitty for anyone using the platform to try and move a guitar or pedal now and again as you are being driven to alternate markets to capitalize on the value. If people had have appropriately reported actual income from this medium then we may have never gotten here but I dont think there is a going back.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

Mark Brown said:


> I still maintain that while what you say is correct in those sets of circumstances, once that transaction is at the behest of a third party (reverb) it no longer qualifies. The problem is no one paid it much mind for so long.
> 
> I would whole heartedly accept that in a perfectly functioning system two private individuals should be able to facilitate a sale on Reverb and have the transaction service fee be the only logically taxed product. That makes perfect sense. The problem then becomes identifying every individual that meets that criteria and insuring that it is not abused. To be entirely fair to the Gubbament (shudder) this is how it was supposed to be and why it was such a grey area for so long. In reality, the legality was never muddled at all however there are scores of private sellers who in fact are running business this way and keeping their revenue off the books. This is why they needed a blanket change.
> 
> ...


Personally, I think the most logical starting point would be to actually use and enforce existing tax law through the existing tax enforcement structure. This doesn't really address the heart of the issue; particularly when you consider that it has almost zero effect on marketplaces like Kijiji and whatever alternatives exist/pop up in the future. Also, while Im sure there is an element of 'helplessness' on the part of the government when it comes to tackling this issue, the desire to use this as a means to increase tax revenue is atleast as strong and, more likely, much stronger. 

Im never a big fan of punishing the law abiding to try to tackle issues surrounding those individuals who break the rules.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> Personally, I think the most logical starting point would be to actually use and enforce existing tax law through the existing tax enforcement structure. This doesn't really address the heart of the issue; particularly when you consider that it has almost zero effect on marketplaces like Kijiji and whatever alternatives exist/pop up in the future. Also, while Im sure there is an element of 'helplessness' on the part of the government when it comes to tackling this issue, the desire to use this as a means to increase tax revenue is atleast as strong and, more likely, much stronger.


Yes!

That concisely sums up the entire argument for, against and bewildered.

The existing law would work, if we weren't a self reporting bunch of heathens. Just be glad we still have paper money and a sense of privacy to conduct private affairs. Lots help us all when the end of that comes.

The new rules are definitely using a sledge hammer to set a finish nail.


----------



## Midnight Rider (Apr 2, 2015)

Sunny Days,... Sunny Ways, 🤣
Someone has to pay for the last 2.5 years of rolling the








Creative taxing 101.


----------

