Re: Qu??bec Sales tax
On 2018-03-28 17:45, Alain Hebert wrote: > Same deal as Paypal and EBay. Paypal and EBay have not worked fevereshly to avoid a presence in Canada. They have presence and already handle the taxes. > Netflix dropping their services in CDN/QC only serve > attempt at making yet another market grab. Netflix has worked VERY hard to avoid having a presence in Canada to avoid not only taxation, but also regulation from CRTC in broadcasting, having to contribute to various funds etc. The danger here is that it may feel that losing its QC customers is worth the price of maintaining the illusion it has no presence in Canada. There is also a class action lawsuit for Netflix because it did not follow the Québec Consumer procection law when it raised its rates a year or two ago. Class action lawsuits can be very expensive. And to bring his back to the network/ISP level: this is why it is very important that ISPs remain "common carriers" who do not control or have responsibility over content so that they don't get dragged into all those issues. > ( And with all the hardware already deployed locally at the > many exchanges ... ) Netflix owns NO, NONE, NADA, ZERO hardware in Canada. It has no offices in Canada. Gifting the network appliances to ISPs means Netflix does not own the hardware and thus maintains its "no presence here". The second Netflix has physical presence here, the existing tax laws kicks in and Netflix must collect federal and provincial taxes.
Re: Qu??bec Sales tax
bell canada? /kc On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 05:45:26PM -0400, Alain Hebert said: >?? Same deal as Paypal and EBay. > >?? Netflix dropping their services in CDN/QC only serve >attempt at making yet another market grab. > > >?? At the end Netflix may just charge the Tax and funnel it to the >govt.?? They'll still be making a bundle. > >?? ?? ( And with all the hardware already deployed locally at the >many exchanges ... ) > > >?? Now if we can only break that damn 1930's licensing scheme so that >we can gain access to more content...?? Kinda annoyed that >is hogging all the content with their vertical licensing agreements. > >- >Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net >PubNIX Inc. >50 boul. St-Charles >P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 >Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443 > >On 03/27/18 18:21, Ken Chase wrote: >>If Netflix has no physical presence in Quebec, what the lever are they going >>to use to force this? A lawsuit in in the >>US? What court is going to entertain a foreign jurisdiction's tax claim in >>their court? And how would that be then enforced? >> >>Canada has tried this before: >> >>https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/u-s-judge-puts-halt-to-canadian-court-order-for-google-to-delist-search-results-1.3663055 >> >>Court file: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16701/index.do >> >>Im a big fan of Canada standing up for its sovereignty (I live here), but nice >>try. >> >>/kc >> >> >>On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 06:10:51PM -0400, Jean-Francois Mezei said: >> >Not quite networking but probably relevant. >> > >> >The Canadian province of Qu??bec just introduced a new budget with >> >basically the intent to force foreign digital companies who sell >> >services to Qu??bekers to collect the local value added sales tax and >> >remit those to the QC government. >> > >> >The goal is to capture tax from Netflix who has so far escaped taxation >> >in Canada by having no legal/physical presence in Canada, no cache >> >servers of its own etc. Netflix does not currently collect province >> >information from customers (or any address info for that matter). >> > >> >They based many of their arguments on an OECD study (which ironically >> >the Canadian federal government says is not completed yet (as excuse for >> >not proceeding with similar tax). >> > >> >So foreign digital services will be required to require subscibers enter >> >AND VALIDATE their address so that they have an accurate province field >> >(validation remains to be finalized), and IF they sell more than $30,000 >> >to Qu??bec residents, will be required to self register with QC >> >government to collect local sales tax (and remit to QC government). >> > >> >The Qu??bec budget expects that validation of address will be based on IP >> >address geolocation or custoemrs send paper bills to prove place of >> >residence. >> > >> >(Although requiring full address/phone number and sendint this to credit >> >card network for authorization might constitute a better means to >> >validate address). >> > >> >I suspect the big winners will be VPN services in the USA :-) >> > >> >Because many ISPs span multiple provinces, IP geolocation generally >> >points to their HQ address, not necessarily the province of the >> >subscriber. (This is especially true for DSL in bell Canada wholesale >> >where currently a single point of connection between Bell and ISP allows >> >full reach of all of its DSL territory in QC/ON. For Cable, ISPs require >> >different IP pools for Rogers in Ontario and Vid??otron in Ontario (with >> >a couple of exceptions where Vid??otron has service in a couple fo >> >Ontario towns). In Western Canada, things are harder as Shaw serves BC, >> >AB, SASK and MB. >> >>-- >>Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org Guelph Canada >> > -- Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org Guelph Canada
Re: Qu??bec Sales tax
Same deal as Paypal and EBay. Netflix dropping their services in CDN/QC only serve attempt at making yet another market grab. At the end Netflix may just charge the Tax and funnel it to the govt. They'll still be making a bundle. ( And with all the hardware already deployed locally at the many exchanges ... ) Now if we can only break that damn 1930's licensing scheme so that we can gain access to more content... Kinda annoyed that is hogging all the content with their vertical licensing agreements. - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443 On 03/27/18 18:21, Ken Chase wrote: If Netflix has no physical presence in Quebec, what the lever are they going to use to force this? A lawsuit in in the US? What court is going to entertain a foreign jurisdiction's tax claim in their court? And how would that be then enforced? Canada has tried this before: https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/u-s-judge-puts-halt-to-canadian-court-order-for-google-to-delist-search-results-1.3663055 Court file: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16701/index.do Im a big fan of Canada standing up for its sovereignty (I live here), but nice try. /kc On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 06:10:51PM -0400, Jean-Francois Mezei said: >Not quite networking but probably relevant. > >The Canadian province of Qu??bec just introduced a new budget with >basically the intent to force foreign digital companies who sell >services to Qu??bekers to collect the local value added sales tax and >remit those to the QC government. > >The goal is to capture tax from Netflix who has so far escaped taxation >in Canada by having no legal/physical presence in Canada, no cache >servers of its own etc. Netflix does not currently collect province >information from customers (or any address info for that matter). > >They based many of their arguments on an OECD study (which ironically >the Canadian federal government says is not completed yet (as excuse for >not proceeding with similar tax). > >So foreign digital services will be required to require subscibers enter >AND VALIDATE their address so that they have an accurate province field >(validation remains to be finalized), and IF they sell more than $30,000 >to Qu??bec residents, will be required to self register with QC >government to collect local sales tax (and remit to QC government). > >The Qu??bec budget expects that validation of address will be based on IP >address geolocation or custoemrs send paper bills to prove place of >residence. > >(Although requiring full address/phone number and sendint this to credit >card network for authorization might constitute a better means to >validate address). > >I suspect the big winners will be VPN services in the USA :-) > >Because many ISPs span multiple provinces, IP geolocation generally >points to their HQ address, not necessarily the province of the >subscriber. (This is especially true for DSL in bell Canada wholesale >where currently a single point of connection between Bell and ISP allows >full reach of all of its DSL territory in QC/ON. For Cable, ISPs require >different IP pools for Rogers in Ontario and Vid??otron in Ontario (with >a couple of exceptions where Vid??otron has service in a couple fo >Ontario towns). In Western Canada, things are harder as Shaw serves BC, >AB, SASK and MB. -- Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org Guelph Canada
Re: Qu??bec Sales tax
On 2018-03-27 18:21, Ken Chase wrote: > If Netflix has no physical presence in Quebec, what the lever are they going > to use to force this? A lawsuit in in the > US? What court is going to entertain a foreign jurisdiction's tax claim in > their court? And how would that be then enforced? Or Netflix could just call the QC govt's bluff and just stop serving QC customers and see QC voters rebel against the government if they lose Netflix. The "no presence in Canada" has had other impacts *Netflix refusing to comply to a CRTC request for infornation claiming CRTC doesn't regulate foreign companies with no presence in Canada). (Ironically, Netflix has hired lobysists who are quite active in Canada). The jurisdiction aspect is an important one. Basically, the current structure favour people buying services outside their own country to avoid tax. And it isn't just in Canada. (For instance, the small Canadian streaming services have to charge tax to their customers, but Netflix doesn't. (google/apple do because they have physical presence here). BTW, and this is a serious Orwelian thing, foreign providers who register will be required to give the QC government their customer lists so that the QC govt can find any tax cheaters who pretend to live in different province and charhe penalies of $100 or more to those individuals). So the QC govt will claim some fairly serious extra-territorial powers.
Re: Qu??bec Sales tax
If Netflix has no physical presence in Quebec, what the lever are they going to use to force this? A lawsuit in in the US? What court is going to entertain a foreign jurisdiction's tax claim in their court? And how would that be then enforced? Canada has tried this before: https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/u-s-judge-puts-halt-to-canadian-court-order-for-google-to-delist-search-results-1.3663055 Court file: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16701/index.do Im a big fan of Canada standing up for its sovereignty (I live here), but nice try. /kc On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 06:10:51PM -0400, Jean-Francois Mezei said: >Not quite networking but probably relevant. > >The Canadian province of Qu??bec just introduced a new budget with >basically the intent to force foreign digital companies who sell >services to Qu??bekers to collect the local value added sales tax and >remit those to the QC government. > >The goal is to capture tax from Netflix who has so far escaped taxation >in Canada by having no legal/physical presence in Canada, no cache >servers of its own etc. Netflix does not currently collect province >information from customers (or any address info for that matter). > >They based many of their arguments on an OECD study (which ironically >the Canadian federal government says is not completed yet (as excuse for >not proceeding with similar tax). > >So foreign digital services will be required to require subscibers enter >AND VALIDATE their address so that they have an accurate province field >(validation remains to be finalized), and IF they sell more than $30,000 >to Qu??bec residents, will be required to self register with QC >government to collect local sales tax (and remit to QC government). > >The Qu??bec budget expects that validation of address will be based on IP >address geolocation or custoemrs send paper bills to prove place of >residence. > >(Although requiring full address/phone number and sendint this to credit >card network for authorization might constitute a better means to >validate address). > >I suspect the big winners will be VPN services in the USA :-) > >Because many ISPs span multiple provinces, IP geolocation generally >points to their HQ address, not necessarily the province of the >subscriber. (This is especially true for DSL in bell Canada wholesale >where currently a single point of connection between Bell and ISP allows >full reach of all of its DSL territory in QC/ON. For Cable, ISPs require >different IP pools for Rogers in Ontario and Vid??otron in Ontario (with >a couple of exceptions where Vid??otron has service in a couple fo >Ontario towns). In Western Canada, things are harder as Shaw serves BC, >AB, SASK and MB. -- Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org Guelph Canada
