Subject:
|
Re: Customs question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:58:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1073 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > > Well, considering that the "gift" denotes the contents of the package (or so
> > > > I would assume the "law" dictates), then no, not really...
> > >
> > > But if I sell you an old 3055 (say) for $3 & postage is "Merchandise" more
> > > appropriate than "gift"?
> >
> > Not unless you define merchandise as necessarily above a certain cost or
> > from a certain source. I'd say merchandise in this case is when you've paid
> > for the contents of the package. If you only paid shipping, then, sure, mark
> > it as a gift.
> >
> > > Merchandise is more for describing buying from a
> > > commercial organisation.
> >
> > Well, I disagree totally. I'd consider merchandise to be something that
> > you've paid for (goods, not really so much services-- although construable
> > as such). Otherwise, define "commercial organisation". Is a Brickbay store a
> > commercial organisation?
> >
> > > If anyone is selling several thousand dollars worth
> > > pa then perhaps they should be viewed as an commercial entity, but that is
> > > another issue...
> >
> > Nah, I disagree. If you sold something, technically it shouldn't be marked
> > "gift". If you feel ok disregarding the law, though, go for it. I won't hold
> > it against you. I'm sure even if they knew, they wouldn't come after you
> > unless it was worth their while-- and a several dollar charge just isn't
> > worth it. It'd also be tough to prove (without your admission) that it
> > *wasn't* a gift, too.
>
> I agree with David. A sale is a sale. If you received any payment for it,
> it's merchandise. Even if you only paid for shipping. Anything else is
> lying, at least to yourself, and possibly to the world at large when you
> make such a specious claim publicly.
>
> See, I think rationalising away that something you received payment for
> (even you as a person rather than an organization or a company or whatever)
> isn't "merchandise" is *more* dishonest (at the fundamental level) than
> saying "yes, I know this fits the government in question's definition of
> 'merchandise'... but I choose to mark it gift nonetheless because I choose
> to assist the recepient in evading an unjust restraint of free trade".
I don't agree. In your situation you are knowingly and deliberately lying,
breaking the law and trying to make some clumsy political point whilst
doing so. I am disagreeing with the interpretation of the word “merchandise".
Scott A
>
> And *that's* what I am saying. NOT that I claim it "isn't merchandise".
>
> Now if the recepient said to me "I am morally OK with paying tax on imports,
> but I would rather not do so in this case because I just don't feel like it"
> well then, I am going to mark it "merchandise" even if he wanted it marked
> "gift" because I am not going to assist him in being dishonest with himself.
>
> I guess I need to start asking people how they feel (maybe make them take
> the LP pledge! (just kidding)) because to just assume that they share my
> views about taxation when they ask me to mark it gift is a bit of an
> intellectual evasion on my part. For all I know they're perfectly fine with
> restraint of trade as long as it applies to that other bloke over there and
> not them.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) Lets make this crystal clear... suppose you and I both lived in the US and we had the same level of yearly sales (say 5 things a year, well below what you and I do in actuality) and we had identical lots to buyers in the same country (say OZ). (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) I agree with David. A sale is a sale. If you received any payment for it, it's merchandise. Even if you only paid for shipping. Anything else is lying, at least to yourself, and possibly to the world at large when you make such a specious (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
