Recent shipping issues

[Grey Doffin]

In my state, and in others I'm sure, there is something called Use Tax.  Any purchases on which you weren't charged sales tax, after a certain $ amount is reached, you are supposed to remit to the state the equivalent amount in use tax.  Almost no one pays this because there is no way for the state to know what you buy mail order or online.  I pay it for my furniture shop because I have to file income tax returns; if I want to deduct the cost of supplies bought from out of state I better pay the tax.  I don't pay it on the book and sword business because the products will be shipped out of state once they are sold.

Grey

[Darcy]

Well, when you buy something online from a retailer located in another state, the only people charged sales tax are those ordering from the same state as that where the retailer is located and the sale is made. I have never received anything from my state requesting sales tax on items I purchased out of state or out of the country, ever, and that is a lot of merchandise over decades...Maybe I'm lucky?

 

It's an issue of reporting, collection and enforcement mostly. If it's not going over the country border there is no way for your home state to collect information about your purchases (currently, believe me they want retailers to charge the tax if they ship to you and they are trying hard to get it enforced). They have been pushing companies like Amazon and so forth to collect state taxes based on the residency of the buyer for a while now. I don't know where that effort stands but Amazon has been resisting it. Basically whatever your state sales tax is is a discount for Amazon to offer you at the detriment of your local stores (and your state revenue).

 

Now whether it is actually owed yet on state to state purchases, I don't know, I just know that the states want that revenue and don't want all this money going to California/Amazon for tax free purchases while people won't buy locally. Makes sense, why go to the local Best Buy to buy something and pay tax if Amazon will ship free with no state sales tax.

 

So its in Amazon's best interests to resist being forced to collect sales tax. Last time I paid attention to the status of this one was a couple of years ago. No idea where it all rests now. 

 

But I do know now that a lot of US retailers will collect Canadian sales taxes during the purchase process if the destination is Canada. Seems crazy but they are doing it. This is I guess a program that lets them expedite shipments to Canada, which are otherwise stopped at customs brokerage, examined, tax assessed and then collected, and then usually the consumer pays for all of that. Also, there is no issue with compliance since the taxes are collected at the source. 

 

In Canada retailers have to register for sales tax in any province in which they sell. If you buy something in BC that is shipped to Ontario they have to charge you Ontario's sales tax. In recent years it's becoming more simple as provinces have been trying to harmonize with the federal sales tax... because there was the federal sales tax (GST) and then the provinces (except for Alberta) all had varying levels of provincial sales tax.

 

And actually in most cases if it was separate they assessed one tax on top of the other. So you had to pay like 8% tax on the 7% (now 5%) tax to the Federal government. Canadians accepted that. Their tax was taxed. Amazing.

 

Anyway for a retailer that is a bit of a nightmare as you would have to collect sales tax and report for all the provinces and territories. So you're talking about 10+ registration numbers, 10+ forms to file plus the federal form. Monthly. USA would be a 5x nightmare due to having 5x as many states and territories. I can't imagine it and I'd think that retailers also would not want to be filing 50 different sales tax reports and trying to comply with 50 different sets of laws. 

 

Anyway I think Grey has the right answer, it is not sales tax but use tax that applies when out of state and you're supposed to self report. Less than 1% of people seem to do this and the rest don't bother.

[cabowen]

 

Anyway I think Grey has the right answer, it is not sales tax but use tax that applies when out of state and you're supposed to self report. Less than 1% of people seem to do this and the rest don't bother.

 

Indeed.

 

Good luck collecting that, Mr. Revenuer....

 

 

[Brian]

I think it is important to note the following, and I will be emphasizing this again soon via a more widespread method:

• NMB does not advocate breaking customs laws for import and export.
• NMB has an interest in educating its members by sharing information about correctly and legally filing paperwork on importing and exporting their swords.
• Any posts seen to advocate anything less than "how to do it right" are not too helpful to members as they encourage them to break laws without proper understanding of their responsibilities and repercussions of them, and such posts are not condoned and will be removed if found to advocate illegal activities.
• NMB are not lawyers or versed in any particular country's import/export laws, so all members need to take what they read here with a grain of salt, and also because we are not lawyers we may miss some posts that should have been removed or removed some posts that may be OK.
• NMB highly advocates that all members importing or exporting anything educate themselves on their country's laws and regulations and do their best to be in compliance with all of them.
  
  Brian

[Kronos]

Laws are only laws if they're enforceable.

[b.hennick]

Sorry I can't agree with that. Laws are laws - enforcement is sometimes great, often good and sometimes poor or non-existent. Some of us law and order types do not break laws others love to since they are not enforced or cannot be enforced.You can be in either group or somewhere in the middle. 

[Darcy]

Laws are only laws if they're enforceable.

 

No, for a lot of reasons. 

 

1. lack of perception of enforceability is not necessary inability to enforce... that is the layperson's limited viewpoint may not encompass powers that are out there and exist to enforce these things.

 

2. enforcement of one set of laws may inadvertently bring down on you enforcement of the "unenforceable" set of laws... for instance, an income tax audit could reveal that you were not paying use tax. While there is no way to monitor use tax, it is the income tax audit that gets you entangled in that. Another example is someone transporting drugs in a car, the police cannot stop cars at random to check to see if drugs are being transported, but they can stop that car if there is a taillight burned out, or if the car rolls through a stop sign, and the enforcement of the traffic violation can suddenly open up an avenue for enforcing drug trafficking laws. 

 

3. lack of current enforcement does not mean that there will not be future enforcement coming online which will not grandfather past behavior, say for instance your government passes a law that says all download records must be made available to any copyright holder to examine via a central repository and ISPs have to give up the last 5 years of data, this would imply then that all the illegal downloaders who were getting away with it because of the difficulty of enforcement now have their past misdeeds exposed

 

Probably there's more, I'm not even a lawyer and this is just what popped into my head.

[paulb]

At the risk of sounding Sanctimonious in a modern democracy conforming to a law should not depend on it's enforceability. Laws are created and passed in to law by a government elected by the majority of citizens and in their name. They are  there generally because they reflect the moral valuesor at least the wishes of the population. Therefore they should be adhered to, not for fear of being caught, but because obeying the law is the right thing to do.

I fail to understand how people spend considerable sums on an item and then are prepared to risk a criminal record and worse by not paying duty/VAT. which amounts to a % of what they have already spent. Admittedly in the UK this is only 5% on swords so not so great an amount, but some still appear to try and avoid it effectively committing fraud on route and risking a criminal record.

[Ken-Hawaii]

Hmm, here's something that might help...or not: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ASIA_PACIFIC_TRADE_DEAL_QA

 

Ken

[Kronos]

At the risk of sounding Sanctimonious in a modern democracy conforming to a law should not depend on it's enforceability. Laws are created and passed in to law by a government elected by the majority of citizens and in their name. They are  there generally because they reflect the moral valuesor at least the wishes of the population. Therefore they should be adhered to, not for fear of being caught, but because obeying the law is the right thing to do.

I fail to understand how people spend considerable sums on an item and then are prepared to risk a criminal record and worse by not paying duty/VAT. which amounts to a % of what they have already spent. Admittedly in the UK this is only 5% on swords so not so great an amount, but some still appear to try and avoid it effectively committing fraud on route and risking a criminal record.

 

No it shouldn't, but in the real world it does otherwise we wouldn't have the criminal justice system. The law essentially works on the basis that if you break it you get punished as a disincentive, however without punishment then that law for all intents and purposes does not exist as it relies on the individuals morality which may or may not encompass the thought that a given law is wrong as not everyone agrees with all of a societies laws. There's been many laws throughout history that were completely repulsive to modern democratic societies, the right of women to vote for example and with 50% of populations women then that clearly did not reflect the wishes of the population. There's quite a few laws in Britain currently that none of the population voted for or agree with that were put through by parliament.

 

No, for a lot of reasons. 

 

1. lack of perception of enforceability is not necessary inability to enforce... that is the layperson's limited viewpoint may not encompass powers that are out there and exist to enforce these things.

 

2. enforcement of one set of laws may inadvertently bring down on you enforcement of the "unenforceable" set of laws... for instance, an income tax audit could reveal that you were not paying use tax. While there is no way to monitor use tax, it is the income tax audit that gets you entangled in that. Another example is someone transporting drugs in a car, the police cannot stop cars at random to check to see if drugs are being transported, but they can stop that car if there is a taillight burned out, or if the car rolls through a stop sign, and the enforcement of the traffic violation can suddenly open up an avenue for enforcing drug trafficking laws. 

 

3. lack of current enforcement does not mean that there will not be future enforcement coming online which will not grandfather past behavior, say for instance your government passes a law that says all download records must be made available to any copyright holder to examine via a central repository and ISPs have to give up the last 5 years of data, this would imply then that all the illegal downloaders who were getting away with it because of the difficulty of enforcement now have their past misdeeds exposed

 

Probably there's more, I'm not even a lawyer and this is just what popped into my head.

 

1) I agree but lack of perception of ability to enforce is generally present when a law is not actively being enforced. Everyone who breaks a law takes a risk vs reward standpoint and if they think their chances of being caught are low then it depends on other factors.

 

2) I'm not sure how often you get audited in Canada, but here without owning a business the chances are effectively zero making it a mute point. Drug traffickers aren't exactly known for their intelligence and it still requires you to be breaking another law so it's a very weak argument you present.

 

3) Good luck with that, enforcing the internet is practically impossible as China shows.

 

Sorry I can't agree with that. Laws are laws - enforcement is sometimes great, often good and sometimes poor or non-existent. Some of us law and order types do not break laws others love to since they are not enforced or cannot be enforced.You can be in either group or somewhere in the middle. 

 

Yet I would wager you've broken many laws in your life, whether it be getting a parking ticket, speeding or littering even if you are a "law and order type".

[paulb]

James

You are right,

Many laws are unpopular (I rmember working hard with colleagues from the Northern Token fighting and getting the sword ban legislation diluted. It was a stupid law and needed modification. What we got was the best compromise we could achieve at the time) and some unworkable. Ufortunately no one has found a better way and until they do we're stuck with it and the only weapon we have agianst unjust or stupid laws are the balot. The fact we have a criminal justice systemis an excuse to feel free to try it and disregard the law. I am talking about the individuals decision to do what is right or wrong. The legal system is there for those who take the wrong decision.

Have I broken laws? Yes for sure. I do 30,000 miles a year on our roads and have my share of speeding points. The motivation in these cases was lack of attention or ignorance rather than a delibrate flouting of the law

However in the case of misreprestation in customs declarations while I accept some may be driven by some sense of injustice in the majority of cases I would suggest it is simply wanting to avoid paying what is due. There seems to be a belief that effectively robbing the revenue isnt real theft. That is not the case and no argument about making a stance against stupid or unjust laws alters that fact.

I am conscious that this thread is rapidly going off track from the original intent. So perhaps it is time to draw a line under this subject.

Ultimately we can all make our own decisions and live with whatever the consequences of thos might be. I doubt we will ever reach agreement on all aspects,

[Kronos]

For the record I was never arguing for or against falsifying declarations, simply stating it is what it is.

 

To bring this back on topic I've noticed since I emailed royal mail they've updated their "prohibited items" list to better reflect that it only includes illegal weapons so there shouldn't be any more problems at the post office with ignorant staff that immediately think weapon when you mention the word sword. This should help those in the UK sending swords both domestically and internationally.

[AndyJP]

An update from the UK. Fedex have just refused to deliver a sword to me coming into the UK from Canada. It was stuck at Stansted and I was told that the sword should not have been accepted by Fedex in Canada and should be returned to sender but as an alternative I was given the option to either arrange a private courier to pick it up from Stansted or pick it up in person. Okay, I was lucky and had the option to collect but it seems Fedex are tightening their restrictions even outside of Japan.

 

Andy

[NihontoSeeker]

I'm still getting and sending swords...Japan to Canada, Canada to Japan.

Japan puts the lethal weapon sticker on the box. Good job EMS. I just received my Yukihiro back from Japan it only took a few days in shipping time and labeled right it spent one day in customs and no taxes. Thanks Canada.

Reuben

NihontoSeeker

[Brian]

Andy,

Can you get them to put that in writing?

I will then send out a notice to all 3000 members and cc Fedex to notify them to avoid using Fedex for any of their worldwide shipping needs.

Maybe they don't care...but I would think that is a fairly large customer base. But they would need to have put some of that in writing, and not just say they don't transport weapons. They need to specify they will not transport your antique Japanese art sword.

 

Brian

[AndyJP]

Brian, yes as soon as I have concluded my business with them I will seek a written statement. The Fedex representative that I have been dealing with in the UK has a title of "Dangerous Goods Specialist" - very apologetic and also very helpful in getting the blade quickly cleared through customs for next day pick up so I will see if he can give me the statement of their position on shipping antique Japanese swords both within the UK and Internationally.

Andy

[Darcy]

I pity anyone having to deal with European bureaucracy. A thousand years of finding ways to say no to people. Sigh.

 

Anyway Fedex UK seems to indicate they will deliver some forms of explosives. That's OK. I guess swords are right in there with live ebola and radioactives.

 

United Kingdom

Dangerous Goods Delivery: Yes
Explosives (1.4 “S” only )
Radioactives: No
Category A Infectious Substances: No
Not all cities served

[paulb]

I wrote to FeDex last week both via there customer service email and in hard copy (that really confused the man at the end of the phone as he had no idea what their mailing address was) I received their standard email reply saying they hoped to respond within 24 hours. They didnt. I emailed again today sending another copy of the letter. I have been given a contact name and told they will contact me shortly. I will update you if and when I hear anything

Regards

Paul

[Shugyosha]

After availing myself of Kunitaro san's polishing service, I have just received two swords from Japan to the UK by EMS. One was delivered without being detained by HM Revenue and Customs which was a nice bonus and the other was released after production of the appropriate paperwork evidencing ownership and posting from the UK...so it looks like this route is working OK at the moment.

 

Both packages had the dangerous goods sticker on them when they arrived but I wasn't asked any tricky questions about importing weapons - the description of the items as antique and with the appropriate Harmonised Tariff Code seemed to be sufficient.

 

Kind regards,

[Adrian]

 

 

Anyway Fedex UK seems to indicate they will deliver some forms of explosives. That's OK. I guess swords are right in there with live ebola and radioactives.

 

 

 

 Looks to me like soon enough the only reliable method to move antique swords between countries will be by getting acquainted with pilots and other flight personnel...

[Brian]

Yeah..umm....

http://news.sky.com/story/1468599/pilot-arrested-with-knives-at-heathrow

 

Brian

 

PS - If it will get me a visit to Japan, I will gladly courier swords

[Adrian]

 Of course, that guy got arrested because had the knives on himself.  Air staff has the right to check in luggage (for free) on pretty much any inter-continental flight and their luggage has to comply with the same rules as the passenger's luggage.

 

 Having a pilot (of a long distance flight) courier an item that can be legally transported on a plane as checked in luggage involves no cost and almost no effort for him. A civilian would have to buy a ticket and in most cases at least one night at a hotel.

[Derek]

Some pilots are authorized to be armed; this one obviously was not a FFDO.

 

We can check 3 bags for free internationally.  But we still have to pay taxes on the return flight to the US, if not on duty. 

 

.

[Kronos]

I'm more than happy to courier swords from the UK and back again if there's enough interest.