# Charles Tyrwhitt Policy Change - No Value Added Tax Refunds!!!!



## Deep Classic (Apr 23, 2011)

I recently received my latest order from Charles Tyrwhitt and I noted that the Value Added Tax (VAT) had not been deducted. I contacted CT and they responded that they had recently changed their policy to NOT refund VAT to users outside the EU (please see paragraph 6.4.2 of their terms and conditions on their website). Here is the reply I received from them:

"Thank you for your email.

I am very sorry to hear that you feel this way and that you wish to discontinue your relationship with us. I would like to stress again that it is not that we are now charging VAT to our non-EU customers, but that the prices have altered to be inline with our EU based customers.

Customers from outside the EU will now pay the same prices advertised online and in the catalogue, but these are VAT exclusive for the non-EU customers to ensure that everyone pays the same price.

Nevertheless I have passed your comments on to the relevant departments and have also removed your details from our mailing list. As we order catalogues in advance, you may receive one more, but this will be the last. I do hope you will reconsider and if I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards

Victoria Forrester 
Customer Services"

Think about this response - CT is charging non-EU customers the same prices they are charging EU customers, which includes 20% VAT - and pocketing the difference under the guise of fairness!

I have alerted Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs that CT's advertised prices do not include VAT as they are required by law. Here's what is says at HMRC's website:

https://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/sectors/consumers/basics.htm

"Prices in advertisements, catalogues and price lists Products advertised in outlets, magazines, on the internet, or shown in catalogues, price lists and other literature may be aimed at the  consumer, businesses, or both. If they're only meant for the general public, they'll show you a price including VAT. This is a legal requirement."

I am very distressed about this development as I have been a loyal CT shopper for over 5 years and have recommended their products to many, many friends. If CT reverts to their prior, long-standing business practice, I will be a return customer.

I thought AAAC's members should be aware of this ASAP! Complaints from loyal customers could help CT see the light and revert to proper business practices.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

And to think I just praised them on another thread. Sheesh.

This is an extremely cheesy move, and I plan to use the "contact Nick Wheeler" button to complain. (You get an answer back from one of his minions, of course, but I'm sure he gets the gist of what people write in about.)

PS: They don't seem to have the "contact Nick" option anymore, but it was kinda phony anyway (see response-minion comment above) so I just wrote Customer Service to complain.


----------



## bobharley (Mar 28, 2011)

They say they are doing this to be fair to all their customers. The problem is, not all of their customers live in the EU where this is a 20% VAT. Thus, at a minimum, CT is selling to us in the US for at a 20% higher profit margin. In essence, they are collecting VAT from us but not forwarding it on to HM Taxing. Somehow, that just doesn't seem fair to me.


----------



## ilikeyourstyle (Apr 24, 2007)

So as a Canadian buyer, does that mean I have to pay tax twice on the same item? Awesome. So a purchase from CT is now hit with 17.5% VAT, 18% import duty, 8% provincial tax, and 5% federal tax. That's almost 50% extra on the retail price!

Price was the major advantage CT had over my other shirting options. I guess that's over.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

If they didn't charge the tax, wouldn't people be able to buy all of their products and resell them to people who do live in the EU at a 20% profit? Or do I pay the VAT too if I live in the US and I sell something to someone in the EU?

Personally I like CT as a good brand for its value, but if you're gonna tack on an extra 20% you might as well just buy from a different brand of higher quality.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

a!!!!1 said:


> If they didn't charge the tax, wouldn't people be able to buy all of their products and resell them to people who do live in the EU at a 20% profit? Or do I pay the VAT too if I live in the US and I sell something to someone in the EU?
> 
> Personally I like CT as a good brand for its value, but if you're gonna tack on an extra 20% you might as well just buy from a different brand of higher quality.


If you try to reimport the shirts, there'll be duty to pay.

Frankly, the explanation CT gave is complete bullshytt.

(FWIW many years ago, I asked my local council in England for a quote on some major garbage removal. I accepted the quote, they did the work, and then they sent me an invoice adding VAT. I told them that this was not acceptable and that their initial quote should have included it, as I was a private citizen, not a business, and they immediately agreed and accepted payment for the original amount).


----------



## Deep Classic (Apr 23, 2011)

*Charles Tyrwhitt Unfair*



a!!!!1 said:


> If they didn't charge the tax, wouldn't people be able to buy all of their products and resell them to people who do live in the EU at a 20% profit? Or do I pay the VAT too if I live in the US and I sell something to someone in the EU?
> 
> Personally I like CT as a good brand for its value, but if you're gonna tack on an extra 20% you might as well just buy from a different brand of higher quality.


Any reimported goods sold by a retailer in the UK would have to include VAT and this would have to be included in the advertised price. The issue here is not that tax authorities can or should be avoided, the issue is that CT is engaged in deceptive business practices that are prohibited by law. CT is charging an advertised price that ostensibly includes VAT as required by law then pocketing the difference for non-EU consumers.

No one should tolerate this type of behavior through their patronage!


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Were they previously refunding VAT when items were purchased on their US site?


----------



## hellomarty (May 9, 2009)

BOO to CT. Bad business practice lead to no business.


----------



## Deep Classic (Apr 23, 2011)

Matt S said:


> Were they previously refunding VAT when items were purchased on their US site?


Matt S - the issue only arises when ordering from the UK website. The problem with the US website is that the posted prices are grossly overinflated from the UK website. Let's take the standard four shirt offer:

On the U.S. site it costs $200 and might include free shipping.

On the UK site, the same offer costs 100 pounds. At the exchange rate of $1.63 per pound, this equals $163. Less 20% VAT, the total is about $130. Even with shipping at 13.95 pounds, you are still about $50 cheaper on a $200 order! This is not pocket change in my world.

I found out the pricing discrepancy by accident. I used to travel to London frequently and would buy goods and claim the VAT at the airport. When I got a U.S. CT catalogue, I was shocked at the price discrepancy. I simply ordered from their UK site like I do for all the other merchants who don't have a US-only website (Lewin, H&H, New and Lingwood, etc.). CT was always very good about the VAT refund and it was totaled in the prices for goods shipped out of the EU.

Recognize that the old VAT credit policy didn't cost CT one red cent. They didn't charge taxes that weren't due. This new policy unjustly enriches them at the consumer's expense. Worse it is done under the ruse of a required VAT payment from a government taxing authority. Their T&C's clearly state:

"6.1	The price of any Products will be as quoted on our Website from time to time, except in cases of obvious error. * These prices include VAT but exclude delivery costs, which will be added to the total amount due.*" (emphasis added)

Only later will CT tell you that non-EU customers get no refund (and, oh by the way, the money goes to CT, not taxpayers).

Don't get me wrong - I love CT and their products. Businesses occasionally make mistakes, but I expect them to be corrected once brought to their attention.

Readers - please don't let this practice slide or the temptation will be great for other suppliers to follow suit. Stand up and be heard!


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

I'm trying so hard to care...


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

Deep Classic said:


> I would like to stress again that it is not that we are now charging VAT to our non-EU customers, but that the prices have altered to be inline with our EU based customers.


So, you had found yourself a nice little "loophole" by ordering from the EU site, even though you're not in the EU. Charles Tyrwhitt closed the loophole, and now you're crossposting your rant anywhere you think you'll get sympathy.

I'm with this guy:



Salieri said:


> I'm trying so hard to care...


----------



## bobharley (Mar 28, 2011)

Racer said:


> So, you had found yourself a nice little "loophole" by ordering from the EU site, even though you're not in the EU. Charles Tyrwhitt closed the loophole, and now you're crossposting your rant anywhere you think you'll get sympathy.
> 
> I'm with this guy:


Why is it a loophole? They sell to all on both sites. The fact is, their site indicates that VAT is included in their prices and yet they collect the VAT from non-EU customers and don't remit it to the taxing authority. You are an idiot if you can't understand that.


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

bobharley said:


> Why is it a loophole? They sell to all on both sites. The fact is, their site indicates that VAT is included in their prices and yet they collect the VAT from non-EU customers and don't remit it to the taxing authority. You are an idiot if you can't understand that.


It is a loophole because Charles Tyrwhitt operates three websites one for US customers, one for UK customers another for German and other EU customers that use the Euro as their currency. Deep Classic is trying to cheat the system by ordering his shirts from the UK website because the prices are cheaper and he was able to deduct the 20% VAT on top of that. He's angry because CT has caught onto his scheme and the many other Americans who probably do the same thing. If CT wants to maintain separate price structures for their goods in the US and the UK they should ban US buyers from the UK site and UK buyers from the US site or why have separate sites in the first place.

Also, their is no proof anywhere in this thread that states that Charles Tyrwhitt is keeping the 20% VAT of US customers who order from their UK site, this is just the biased assumption of Deep Classic.

I also noticed that you posted on a similar thread on another so called fashion forum and CT ended your scheme to avoid paying the US prices as well.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

bobharley said:


> You are an idiot if you can't understand that.


OK, I just went from not caring, to happy that your loophole has been closed. Congratulations.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

One side of this argument simply does not understand the nature of sales taxes. 

In all material ways a VAT is the same as a US state sales tax. If you are in Ohio and buy something in Ohio you pay the price of the product and the sales tax. The tax is used for public benefit in Ohio. If you are in Ohio and order something from NY to be shipped to Ohio you do not pay the NY sales tax but, although most people don't, you should pay an Ohio use tax. The point is that the tax is paid by the purchaser for the benefit of government activity in the purchaser's local. This is true in all 50 states.

The same is true of the VAT, it is paid by EU purchasers for the benefit of EU government activity. In both the US and EU the purchaser pays a tax to support his government, not the sellers government.

On the other hand, CT by charging US customers the VAT (and if it turned the VAT collected to the British Government] is requiring the purchaser to pay for the benefit of the sellers government, something the seller's government has never asked for and indeed instructs it's sellers to remit to out of EU costumers. If CT actually turned in the VAT collected from US purchasers to the British government it effectivly would be an export tax, a tax the British government does not impose and indeed would not impose because raising the price of goods to purchasers in the US discourages exports. 

It might be some consolation to US purchasers that by paying Britain's VAT they will be helping fund the National Health Service or BBC or other 
worthwhile cause but I'll bet an Alex K shirt that CT is not turning over the 20% to the British government. 

Actually the US purchaser is not only paying an extra 20% to CT, but must also pay import duty and state use tax to support the purchaser's government.

One side of this argument needs to revisit Econ 101.


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

arkirshner said:


> Actually the US purchaser in not only paying an extra 20% to CT, but must also pay import duty and state use tax to support the purchaser's government.


Which is why I believe that US customers should be buying their goods from the US website and they would avoid all foreign sales tax and probably an import duty if CT operates a warehouse on American soil. The US purchaser wouldn't have to pay any state sales tax either on the US site because CT is headquartered in the UK.


----------



## TheWGP (Jan 15, 2010)

The issue here is very extremely simple: it has nothing whatsoever to do with any supposed "loophole."

CT can charge whatever price they like. The issue is simply that they are advertising the price as including VAT, and they are forwarding no VAT to HM Revenue & Customs. No remittance to HM R&C is appropriate because no VAT is in fact due - but CHARGING it and saying it's VAT when none is due is illegal.

Let's try a simpler example. This is no different than, for example, your corner convenience store adding 20% to all orders for "sales tax" when the actual sales tax is much lower. The additional percent the owners are pocketing is illegal, which I hope is obvious to everyone. If they merely raised their price 20% - and charged actual sales tax as appropriate on top of that - it would be their option, and perfectly fine. Does that make more sense?


----------



## bobharley (Mar 28, 2011)

Racer said:


> OK, I just went from not caring, to happy that your loophole has been closed. Congratulations.


You truly are an idiot. I specifically asked Ct what they did with the 20% VAT I was paying and they said they were keeping it and they didn't consider it a VAT. However, their site certainly indicates it is a VAT. They are not forward the 20% from non-EU customers to HM Taxing and they have no right to collect VAT from non-EU customers unless it is forward on to taxation and thus the customer can apply for a refund. It is done every day in the business world.

Close the supposed "loophole" by not allowing non-EU customers to purchase on the UK site. But for hell sakes, don't charge them a tax and then not forward it on to the government.

What is it you can't understand about this. Obviously you are either uneducated or just love to disagree.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

TheWGP said:


> Let's try a simpler example. This is no different than, for example, your corner convenience store adding 20% to all orders for "sales tax" when the actual sales tax is much lower. The additional percent the owners are pocketing is illegal, which I hope is obvious to everyone. If they merely raised their price 20% - and charged actual sales tax as appropriate on top of that - it would be their option, and perfectly fine. Does that make more sense?


Off topic and out of curiosity, is it legal to say something is part of the shipping cost if it isn't? For example, if it actually costs $5 to ship but I charge someone $20.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

a!!!!1 said:


> Off topic and out of curiosity, is it legal to say something is part of the shipping cost if it isn't? For example, if it actually costs $5 to ship but I charge someone $20.


Perhaps that is why many places call it "shipping _and_ handling".


----------



## Deep Classic (Apr 23, 2011)

thefancyman said:


> It is a loophole because Charles Tyrwhitt operates three websites one for US customers, one for UK customers another for German and other EU customers that use the Euro as their currency. Deep Classic is trying to cheat the system by ordering his shirts from the UK website because the prices are cheaper and he was able to deduct the 20% VAT on top of that. He's angry because CT has caught onto his scheme and the many other Americans who probably do the same thing. If CT wants to maintain separate price structures for their goods in the US and the UK they should ban US buyers from the UK site and UK buyers from the US site or why have separate sites in the first place.


What website are other non-EU consumers supposed to use when they purchase CT goods? A gentleman from Australia indicated earlier in this thread that he will use the UK website over the U.S. website since it offered a more favorable exchange rate. Should he have to pay non-refundable VAT to CT or use the higher priced U.S. website, too? This issue goes way beyond the U.S. and applies to *ALL customers outside the EU*.

What about all the other Jermyn Street sellers who only have UK websites? Should non-EU consumers be prohibited from buying from them? Should they have to pay VAT that is pocketed by the merchant?

If CT wants to stop shipping outside the EU, they can do so. But they cannot pocket the VAT like they are doing now.


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

The law about displaying products inclusive of VAT is surely there to protect consumers from being hit by unexpected extras on their invoice. UK consumers. The precise point is that the price displayed is the price you pay. It says clearly in the terms and conditions on their website that if you're outside the UK you pay the full price regardless of VAT and there is no VAT refund. Vendors _are _within their rights to charge different prices to different customers, regardless of how fair you think that is (I think it's perfectly fair in this instance).

By all means take your business elsewhere but it seems to me faintly childish to make this out to be some kind of scam or crime.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

arkirshner said:


> One side of this argument simply does not understand the nature of sales taxes.
> 
> Actually the US purchaser is not only paying an extra 20% to CT, but must also pay import duty and state use tax to support the purchaser's government.
> 
> One side of this argument needs to revisit Econ 101.


Typically import/duty for the US only takes effect when you break the $2k mark on items.
Shipping companies that file the forms for you (Fedex/DHL/UPS) can and will charge a "broker fee" for this, the funds do not go to the US govt.
Items going through USPS are handled by the govt as such is subject to the specific import laws.


----------



## Brize (Jun 21, 2010)

thefancyman said:


> Deep Classic is trying to cheat the system by ordering his shirts from the UK website because the prices are cheaper and he was able to deduct the 20% VAT on top of that.


We live in a globalised economy: if CT are prepared to sell and ship to non-UK customers through the UK website, how can those customers be 'cheating the system'?! Am I 'cheating the system' when I order through amazon.com instead of amazon.co.uk?


----------



## Deep Classic (Apr 23, 2011)

Salieri said:


> The law about displaying products inclusive of VAT is surely there to protect consumers from being hit by unexpected extras on their invoice. UK consumers. The precise point is that the price displayed is the price you pay. It says clearly in the terms and conditions on their website that if you're outside the UK you pay the full price regardless of VAT and there is no VAT refund. Vendors _are _within their rights to charge different prices to different customers, regardless of how fair you think that is (I think it's perfectly fair in this instance).
> 
> By all means take your business elsewhere but it seems to me faintly childish to make this out to be some kind of scam or crime.


People need to think long and hard about whether or not to approve this business practice. CT is a major player in this space and, believe me, their every move is closely monitored by competitors.

As all likely know, our U.S. state sales taxes have risen substantially in the face of looming budget deficits. If CT's practice stands, I could easily see U.S. merchants charging non-U.S. buyers the state sales tax difference and claiming that it is done out of "fairness." Of course, the taxes don't go to the taxpayers, but to the merchant. *All buyers who shop online have a stake in this.*

Why anyone would give a "gold star" to such a practice is beyond me. I guess that P.T. Barnum was right!


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

The way I see it, the cost to produce the items is the same regardless of who is buying it. Lets say it's $30. Tack on a profit, which of course, any business has a right to at whatever margin they like. Let's call that $20, so a total of $50 for a given garment. (and yes, I'm using dollars here, but it could be any form of currency). CT is saying they are REQUIRED to charge an extra 20% for VAT for all items sold to EU customers, which is understandable. However, that same 20% increase is not required of US customers. To arbitrarily charge an additional 20% is the problem. Doing so 'just because' is bad enough, but doing so and claiming it is going to VAT...well, I'm not going to accuse them of anything, but if they are not turning that in to the proper authorities, they've got some explaining to do.

I wonder what would happen if all of a sudden, US customers applied for a refund of the VAT paid to CT and those numbers didn't match what CT paid to the government. 

Either way, whether they are choosing to charge their non-EU customers more by way of fraud or not, I will probably not be purchasing from them anymore. I'm not going to go through the trouble of filing to get the 20% back (if it's even possible) and I'm not going to pay an extra 20%.

I feel this was a truely dumb decision on the part of CT, and even if they reverse their position, I'll have to think long and hard about whether to do business with them anymore.


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

Hanzo said:


> The way I see it, the cost to produce the items is the same regardless of who is buying it. Lets say it's $30. Tack on a profit, which of course, any business has a right to at whatever margin they like. Let's call that $20, so a total of $50 for a given garment. (and yes, I'm using dollars here, but it could be any form of currency). CT is saying they are REQUIRED to charge an extra 20% for VAT for all items sold to EU customers, which is understandable. However, that same 20% increase is not required of US customers. To arbitrarily charge an additional 20% is the problem. Doing so 'just because' is bad enough, but doing so and claiming it is going to VAT...well, I'm not going to accuse them of anything, but if they are not turning that in to the proper authorities, they've got some explaining to do.
> 
> I wonder what would happen if all of a sudden, US customers applied for a refund of the VAT paid to CT and those numbers didn't match what CT paid to the government.
> 
> ...


That's not really how economics works though, is it? A producer doesn't choose how much profit they'd like to make on an item and mark it up by that amount. There is a thing called a market price which is how much they are able to sell the item for on the open market. VAT is an awkward thing in this respect because consumers don't think "well, I'm prepared to pay X for this item so it's got to be worth 1.2X after VAT is applied" so you don't find the market price and then add 20%, you sell at the market price and take 83% as sales and the rest is VAT. The producer has to market the good at a price that the buyer is prepared to pay _including_ VAT. So why should CT market their shirts for less than the market price abroad regardless of the VAT position?


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Salieri said:


> That's not really how economics works though, is it? A producer doesn't choose how much profit they'd like to make on an item and mark it up by that amount. There is a thing called a market price which is how much they are able to sell the item for on the open market. VAT is an awkward thing in this respect because consumers don't think "well, I'm prepared to pay X for this item so it's got to be worth 1.2X after VAT is applied" so you don't find the market price and then add 20%, you sell at the market price and take 83% as sales and the rest is VAT. The producer has to market the good at a price that the buyer is prepared to pay _including_ VAT. So why should CT market their shirts for less than the market price abroad regardless of the VAT position?


Are you suggesting that the market price in the US is 20% higher than in the EU? Because non-EU customers are being asked to pay 20% more. And before you say 'no, they're paying the same amount', while that might be true, the EU customers are receiving the additional 20% back in the form of services rendered by their governments.


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

Deep Classic said:


> What website are other non-EU consumers supposed to use when they purchase CT goods? A gentleman from Australia indicated earlier in this thread that he will use the UK website over the U.S. website since it offered a more favorable exchange rate. Should he have to pay non-refundable VAT to CT or use the higher priced U.S. website, too? This issue goes way beyond the U.S. and applies to *ALL customers outside the EU*.
> 
> What about all the other Jermyn Street sellers who only have UK websites? Should non-EU consumers be prohibited from buying from them? Should they have to pay VAT that is pocketed by the merchant?
> 
> If CT wants to stop shipping outside the EU, they can do so. But they cannot pocket the VAT like they are doing now.


I think that it's fine if an Australian ordered his goods from CT's UK website since they do not offer a dedicated Australian website. However, you are an American and you chose purposely to bypass the US website because you wanted to get something for less money that you would pay on the US website.

The other Jermyn Street shirt merchants are very different from Charles Tywhitt. Hawes & Curtis, TM Lewin, Harvie & Hudson, New & Lingwood and Hilditch & Key do not have shops in the United States. CT has two shops in NYC and Turnbull & Asser has one in NYC and another in Beverley Hills and T&A does not allow US customers to buy off their UK website. 
CT is different from all of those other shirtmakers because they have a US website for US customers and you didn't want to use it because you were trying to save money and that's all.

I think it's wrong and I know it's illegal for CT to keep any money they describe as VAT and if they are doing it they should refund the money to their non-EU customers.



Brize said:


> We live in a globalised economy: if CT are prepared to sell and ship to non-UK customers through the UK website, how can those customers be 'cheating the system'?! Am I 'cheating the system' when I order through amazon.com instead of amazon.co.uk?


We do live in a globalized economy which is why Amazon has a US and a UK website. You are cheating the system if you are purposely buying from a foreign website in order to avoid paying taxes.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

It's a fat (20%) price hike pure and simple, and CT is trying to deflect attention from it by hiding behind a smokescreen of doubletalk about VAT and "fairness." It's the sneaky attempt to palm a price hike off as something it's not that I object to. It smacks of deception and reeks of disrespect for customers (do they actually think we're supposed to believe this nonsense?).


----------



## Brize (Jun 21, 2010)

thefancyman said:


> We do live in a globalized economy which is why Amazon has a US and a UK website. You are cheating the system if you are purposely buying from a foreign website in order to avoid paying taxes.


What absolute drivel. When I buy from amazon.com, the parcels invariably arrive with a VAT invoice from HMRC that has to be paid before the goods are released. I'm at liberty to buy from any company, anywhere in the world, that will ship to me.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

bobharley said:


> You truly are an idiot. I specifically asked Ct what they did with the 20% VAT I was paying and they said they were keeping it and they didn't consider it a VAT. However, their site certainly indicates it is a VAT. They are not forward the 20% from non-EU customers to HM Taxing and they have no right to collect VAT from non-EU customers unless it is forward on to taxation and thus the customer can apply for a refund. It is done every day in the business world.
> 
> Close the supposed "loophole" by not allowing non-EU customers to purchase on the UK site. But for hell sakes, don't charge them a tax and then not forward it on to the government.
> 
> What is it you can't understand about this. Obviously you are either uneducated or just love to disagree.


What is it I don't understand? I don't understand your behavior about this, or the behavior of your buddy/alter ego.

It's clear to me that you, your buddy, and several other posters in this thread don't understand the regulations and THE VOLUNTARY ASPECTS surrounding VAT and non-EU residents. I find this quite amusing, especially the facile lecture from the gentleman who thinks his understanding of the issue is so great that everyone else should go back to school.

It seems that CT would prefer that US customers use their US export site to order their products, rather than playing the arbitrage game at their expense. They appear to have implemented a policy change to push US customers away from their VAT-registered UK business. That's their choice, and they aren't doing anything illegal, immoral, or unethical. Your choice is to either accept their policy change, or take your business elsewhere. Instead, you and your buddy have made the rounds of various websites, letting everyone know how butthurt you are that your amateur arbitrage game has ended, and encouraging non-EU residents to lodge frivolous, specious complaints with a foreign tax authority (something I find absolutely hilarious).

If you guys are just trolling, it's a really good troll - best I've seen in a while. If you're actually serious, you guys are pathetically clueless.


----------



## Deep Classic (Apr 23, 2011)

Racer said:


> What is it I don't understand? I don't understand your behavior about this, or the behavior of your buddy/alter ego.
> 
> It's clear to me that you, your buddy, and several other posters in this thread don't understand the regulations and THE VOLUNTARY ASPECTS surrounding VAT and non-EU residents. I find this quite amusing, especially the facile lecture from the gentleman who thinks his understanding of the issue is so great that everyone else should go back to school.
> 
> ...


Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

Brize said:


> What absolute drivel. When I buy from amazon.com, the parcels invariably arrive with a VAT invoice from HMRC that has to be paid before the goods are released. I'm at liberty to buy from any company, anywhere in the world, that will ship to me.


It may work that way in the UK but in the US we don't pay sales tax on any goods ordered online unless the company is located in the US State that we are a primary resident of.


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

Hanzo said:


> Are you suggesting that the market price in the US is 20% higher than in the EU? Because non-EU customers are being asked to pay 20% more. And before you say 'no, they're paying the same amount', while that might be true, the EU customers are receiving the additional 20% back in the form of services rendered by their governments.


Well, that's not the way consumer psychology works for the vast majority of people is it? Nobody thinks "well it's worth that because of the NHS". It's to do with how much actual money people are literally prepared to fork out for a good at point of sale.

I daresay CT have thought this through more than you are giving them credit for.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

Deep Classic said:


> Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.


OK, now I'm pretty sure that you, at least, have been trolling. What's your userid over on FNB?


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Racer said:


> It seems that CT would prefer that US customers use their US export site to order their products, rather than playing the arbitrage game at their expense.


I don't care for the previous poster's name calling and feel that it's getting awfully serious for such a small and impersonal issue, but I was curious about your above statement. In what way would this be at the expense of CT?


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Salieri said:


> Well, that's not the way consumer psychology works for the vast majority of people is it? Nobody thinks "well it's worth that because of the NHS". It's to do with how much actual money people are literally prepared to fork out for a good at point of sale.
> 
> I daresay CT have thought this through more than you are giving them credit for.


I suppose at the end of the day, each customer has to decide whether the end product is worth the price being charged. I'll certainly never fault a company for trying to make as much money as they can. But trying to make a larger profit off of one group of customers based on their location/nationality comes across, to me anyway, as a bit insulting. I like CT's products, but they are not so special as to prevent me from ending my business relationship with them based on this.


----------



## Brize (Jun 21, 2010)

thefancyman said:


> It may work that way in the UK but in the US we don't pay sales tax on any goods ordered online unless the company is located in the US State that we are a primary resident of.


Yes, but you would pay tax on goods of a certain value imported from outside the US, would you not? In the UK, that threshold value is quite low - equivalent to around $30.

It's a bit much to suggest that someone is 'cheating the system' simply for ordering from an international website. Again, if a company is prepared to ship internationally, it is perfectly legitimate for non-domestic residents to buy from them, even if they are just indulging in a spot of casual arbitrage, as Racer so colourfully puts it.

I'm fairly confident that CT will have ensured that what they're doing is perfectly above board: it's more of a PR balls-up than anything else.


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

Incidentally I haven't bought a shirt from CT for well over a year, but I am now totally committed to renewing my acquaintance with them


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

For what it's worth, I just ran a quick comparison.

For the same shirt, you could order it from the UK website for 19.95GBP or the US website for $39.

Currently, 19.95GBP is worth $32.92.

I'll let everyone draw what conclusions they wish.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

Hanzo said:


> I don't care for the previous poster's name calling and feel that it's getting awfully serious for such a small and impersonal issue, but I was curious about your above statement. In what way would this be at the expense of CT?


Contrary to what at least one poster has asserted, merchant participation in VAT refund schemes for non-EU residents is voluntary. VAT-registered businesses tend to participate when doing so is seen as a competitive advantage. Processing the paperwork for customers and for the taxing authority is an administrative expense. Since VAT refund is voluntary, the expense of doing so is voluntary. If an expense that is voluntarily incurred eats into profits, it makes sense to look at whether it's worth it. The complainers say they have been using arbitrage to take advantage of the price difference between two markets. When they do this, CT receives less revenue than they would have if the purchases were made via the US site, and CT incurs the expense of processing the VAT refund paperwork and reporting to the tax authority. Lose/lose for CT.

If I were part of CT management, I would institute controls to prevent anyone with a US mailing/shipping address from using my UK website. Perhaps CT is not able to do so at this time. If that's the case, then halting the voluntary processing of VAT refunds for US customers who use the UK site would be the next thing I would consider. Looks like that's what they did.


----------



## spielerman (Jul 21, 2007)

Racer said:


> What is it I don't understand? I don't understand your behavior about this, or the behavior of your buddy/alter ego.
> 
> It's clear to me that you, your buddy, and several other posters in this thread don't understand the regulations and THE VOLUNTARY ASPECTS surrounding VAT and non-EU residents. I find this quite amusing, especially the facile lecture from the gentleman who thinks his understanding of the issue is so great that everyone else should go back to school.
> 
> ...


Honestly, was staying out of this untill your troll comments... You sir are the head troll here. Arbitrage.. there is no arbitrage going on here...

Go brush up on what arbitrage is, and you will certainly find that this is not the case in this example.

This is just CT formalizing the price differential between UK and US, for whatever reason..and one of their own creating in the first place (could have insisted no US orders on a UK website).


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

spielerman said:


> Honestly, was staying out of this untill your troll comments... You sir are the head troll here. Arbitrage.. there is no arbitrage going on here...
> 
> Go brush up on what arbitrage is, and you will certainly find that this is not the case in this example.


Read the beginning of the first sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage

I suggest you return to staying out of this if calling me a troll is the best you can offer.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

thefancyman said:


> It may work that way in the UK but in the US we don't pay sales tax on any goods ordered online unless the company is located in the US State that we are a primary resident of.


Thats true, however many, if not all ,states have a use tax for such purchases. Its just that almost no one declares or pays it


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Racer said:


> Contrary to what at least one poster has asserted, merchant participation in VAT refund schemes for non-EU residents is voluntary. VAT-registered businesses tend to participate when doing so is seen as a competitive advantage. Processing the paperwork for customers and for the taxing authority is an administrative expense. Since VAT refund is voluntary, the expense of doing so is voluntary. If an expense that is voluntarily incurred eats into profits, it makes sense to look at whether it's worth it. The complainers say they have been using arbitrage to take advantage of the price difference between two markets. When they do this, CT receives less revenue than they would have if the purchases were made via the US site, and CT incurs the expense of processing the VAT refund paperwork and reporting to the tax authority. Lose/lose for CT.
> 
> If I were part of CT management, I would institute controls to prevent anyone with a US mailing/shipping address from using my UK website. Perhaps CT is not able to do so at this time. If that's the case, then halting the voluntary processing of VAT refunds for US customers who use the UK site would be the next thing I would consider. Looks like that's what they did.


I'll concede the expense of CT filing the forms for non-EU customers, but if VAT is being added for EU customers and that money is being sent to the taxing authority, that 20% isn't eating into the profits of CT, it is separate. And I find it difficult to believe that expense of filing the correct documents is 20%. Since the sales are being record kept, it would be a simple issue to showing records of what amount of income was received from non-EU customers and demonstrating that to the taxing authority, something that should be possible with a few clicks of the company mouse as it were. Distributed across all non-EU customers, this would probably be on the order of pennies per customer.

It is my feeling that CT felt they could price things pretty close to equally for both EU and non-EU customers and felt that the majority of customers wouldn't notice the difference in the VAT. They probably also assumed that the few who did notice, even if they took their business elsewhere, could be made up for by the 20% profit they're are making on those who didn't. That is, of course, their choice.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Racer said:


> Read the beginning of the first sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage


Purchasing shoes from a cheaper website is not arbitrage, it is only one transaction. Arbitrage is the act of setting up offsetting deals:

Please read the entire sentence you cited.

"In economics and finance, arbitrage (IPA: /ˈɑrbɨtrɑːʒ/) is the practice of taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets: striking a combination of matching deals that capitalize upon the imbalance, the profit being the difference between the market prices."


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

Brize said:


> Yes, but you would pay tax on goods of a certain value imported from outside the US, would you not? In the UK, that threshold value is quite low - equivalent to around $30.
> 
> It's a bit much to suggest that someone is 'cheating the system' simply for ordering from an international website. Again, if a company is prepared to ship internationally, it is perfectly legitimate for non-domestic residents to buy from them, even if they are just indulging in a spot of casual arbitrage, as Racer so colourfully puts it.
> 
> I'm fairly confident that CT will have ensured that what they're doing is perfectly above board: it's more of a PR balls-up than anything else.


Cheating the system was probably a bit harsh and it should be shared by CT equally in addition to the customer for allowing US buyers to buy off of their UK website in the first place and they should have just banned them instead of charging 20% more for the goods.

I'm sure the US has import duties but I don't know what the threshold is and what may be excluded from it.



Hanzo said:


> But trying to make a larger profit off of one group of customers based on their location/nationality comes across, to me anyway, as a bit insulting.


This is a fairly common practice by most globalized companies. Ralph Lauren charges £70 for a Blue Label polo shirt in the UK which is the equivalent of $115.63 granted that does include the 20% VAT. It it unfair and I don't approve of it but most companies get away with overcharging foreign customers.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

Hanzo said:


> I'll concede the expense of CT filing the forms for non-EU customers, but if VAT is being added for EU customers and that money is being sent to the taxing authority, that 20% isn't eating into the profits of CT, it is separate.


No, it's not separate. It's an expense, and expenses take away profit. The difference is that an EU VAT-registered business is required by law to incur this expense when selling to customers who are not VAT-exempt. It's a necessary cost of business for a VAT-registered company. Offering products sans VAT to non-EU residents isn't mandated by law.



> And I find it difficult to believe that expense of filing the correct documents is 20%.


I'm not sure where you got this from. Why would an expense have to be a particular percentage to be evaluated for feasibility?



> Since the sales are being record kept, it would be a simple issue to showing records of what amount of income was received from non-EU customers and demonstrating that to the taxing authority, something that should be possible with a few clicks of the company mouse as it were. Distributed across all non-EU customers, this would probably be on the order of pennies per customer.


You are making an assumption that I would not presume to make. I don't know the answers to these questions, but I would agree with Salieri above - I too suspect that CT has given this more thought than you are giving them credit for.



> It is my feeling that CT felt they could price things pretty close to equally for both EU and non-EU customers and felt that the majority of customers wouldn't notice the difference in the VAT. They probably also assumed that the few who did notice, even if they took their business elsewhere, could be made up for by the 20% profit they're are making on those who didn't. That is, of course, their choice.


It is indeed their choice. Any time a business makes policy and/or pricing changes, they stand to gain or lose customers. Oftentimes both happens - some old customers are lost, some new are gained. A business that wants to be successful tries to pursue policies that limit the loss and maximize the gains, but unless you run a business that only has a couple of customers, 0% loss is not achievable, so measures that hurt the business in a vain attempt to keep every customer are obviously counterproductive.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> Purchasing shoes from a cheaper website is not arbitrage, it is only one transaction. Arbitrage is the act of setting up offsetting deals:
> 
> Please read the entire sentence you cited.
> 
> "In economics and finance, arbitrage (IPA: /ˈɑrbɨtrɑːʒ/) is the practice of taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets: striking a combination of matching deals that capitalize upon the imbalance, the profit being the difference between the market prices."


There are all kinds of arbitrage, such as risk arbitrage, wage arbitrage, volatility arbitrage - it's not limited to whatever your narrow definition seems to be. Taking advantage of the price difference of the same goods between two or more markets is indeed a form of arbitrage. In this case the purchaser of the shirts profits from the difference between market prices by buying in a different market and using currency exchange rates to pay a lower price.

Perhaps you should consider going beyond your Econ 101 class.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Racer said:


> No, it's not separate. It's an expense, and expenses take away profit. The difference is that an EU VAT-registered business is required by law to incur this expense when selling to customers who are not VAT-exempt. It's a necessary cost of business for a VAT-registered company. Offering products sans VAT to non-EU residents isn't mandated by law.


It is an expense that is passed on to the customer, which, therefore, has zero impact on the profit. If CT produces a shirt that cost them $20 to make and are selling it for $30 (making a $10 profit) and then add 20% for VAT, charging a total of $36 and turn around and hand the $6 of VAT back to the government, they're still making $10. 
Selling the same shirt to a non-EU customer with VAT left out entirely still makes them $10.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Racer said:


> It's clear to me that you, your buddy, and several other posters in this thread don't understand the regulations and THE VOLUNTARY ASPECTS surrounding VAT and non-EU residents. I find this quite amusing, especially the facile lecture from the gentleman who thinks his understanding of the issue is so great that everyone else should go back to school.
> 
> If you guys are just trolling, it's a really good troll - best I've seen in a while. If you're actually serious, you guys are pathetically clueless.


Actually calling the giving of a lecture, or for that matter the performance of any activity ,"facile" is a complement, although I take it you did not mean it that way. I apologize if you took my comment to suggest everyone go back to school, I only intended to suggest one side of this argument go back to school. Econ 101 was suggested. But when you start calling those on the side of the argument opposite yours "trolls",whether you meant to include me or not, in your case the addition of a course in civil manners is long overdue.


----------



## Brize (Jun 21, 2010)

thefancyman said:


> Cheating the system was probably a bit harsh and it should be shared by CT equally in addition to the customer for allowing US buyers to buy off of their UK website in the first place


Why should Charles Tyrwhitt - or any other company - be criticised for selling online to non-domestic buyers?!

All of the systems are in place to make sure that the appropriate taxes are collected where applicable.

No disrespect, but it's an extraordinarily parochial view you're taking toward international online shopping. Would you chastise me for buying from Sam Hober in Thailand?


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Racer said:


> There are all kinds of arbitrage, such as risk arbitrage, wage arbitrage, volatility arbitrage - it's not limited to whatever your narrow definition seems to be.


Excuse me, but the sentence I quoted is not my definition of arbitrage, it is the very sentence from Wikipedia that you cited. If the definition is narrow the fault, sir, is yours.



> Perhaps you should consider going beyond your Econ 101 class.


 I have tried to do so for many years , as you suggest, lifelong learning is to be encouraged.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

For the most part you pay "Zero" customs for goods when you bring them into the US with a value below $2000, when you ship them through USPS. US customs agents work with the USPS.
Shipping companies can/will charge you a "broker" fee they might even call it a customs fee, in reality it is a high priced service fee for filing the customs forms.



Brize said:


> Yes, but you would pay tax on goods of a certain value imported from outside the US, would you not? In the UK, that threshold value is quite low - equivalent to around $30.
> 
> It's a bit much to suggest that someone is 'cheating the system' simply for ordering from an international website. Again, if a company is prepared to ship internationally, it is perfectly legitimate for non-domestic residents to buy from them, even if they are just indulging in a spot of casual arbitrage, as Racer so colourfully puts it.
> 
> I'm fairly confident that CT will have ensured that what they're doing is perfectly above board: it's more of a PR balls-up than anything else.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

Hanzo said:


> It is an expense that is passed on to the customer, which, therefore, has zero impact on the profit. If CT produces a shirt that cost them $20 to make and are selling it for $30 (making a $10 profit) and then add 20% for VAT, charging a total of $36 and turn around and hand the $6 of VAT back to the government, they're still making $10.
> Selling the same shirt to a non-EU customer with VAT left out entirely still makes them $10.


I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Revenue - Expenses = Profit. Expenses always have an impact on profit. There's no such thing as a "zero impact" expense, even ones that are "passed on" to the customer.

I am not willing to guess on how much profit CT may be making on shirts in various markets. I don't make my clothing purchase decisions based on guesses about the profit margin a company earns on my purchases, and I don't subscribe to "fairness" notions when it comes to legitimate business practices, so I have no desire to speculate about this particular subject, or decide what might constitute a reasonable margin for CT.

Thanks for the civil discussion.


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

Brize said:


> Why should Charles Tyrwhitt - or any other company - be criticised for selling online to non-domestic buyers?!
> 
> All of the systems are in place to make sure that the appropriate taxes are collected where applicable.
> 
> No disrespect, but it's an extraordinarily parochial view you're taking toward international online shopping. Would you chastise me for buying from Sam Hober in Thailand?


Charles Tyrwhitt should be criticised for allowing US buyers to buy off of their UK because they operate a US dedicated website and two stores in the US that sell goods only to US customers at higher prices. The systems were not in place in this case because US buyers were able to access CT's UK website purchase goods on it and were then charged a VAT that they are not legally obligated to pay and supposably (but I don't know the truth of this) they did not hand over the tax to the tax authorities.

It doesn't matter whether Sam Hober is located in Thailand because as you stated as a British citizen you are required to pay 20% VAT on how ever many ties you buy from him.

I have nothing against international online shopping and I do it all the time.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> Actually calling the giving of a lecture, or for that matter the performance of any activity ,"facile" is a complement, although I take it you did not mean it that way.


Do you mean "compliment?" "Complement" is something completely different. For your edification, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary has a definition of "facile" that includes the terms, "shallow," and "simplistic." You are welcome to take that definition as a compliment if you so desire.



> I apologize if you took my comment to suggest everyone go back to school, I only intended to suggest one side of this argument go back to school. Econ 101 was suggested.


I see. So you are saying that you didn't insult everyone - you only insulted a subset, and somehow that's OK because it wasn't everyone.



> But when you start calling those on the side of the argument opposite yours "trolls",whether you meant to include me or not, in your case the addition of a course in civil manners is long overdue.


I think you are quite aware that I was referring specifically to the OP, and his alter ego - you know, the ones who have crossposted their complaint across the web. I am not the only person who holds this opinion either; there are posts on another site suggesting that the OP is trolling.

Regardless, you posted your "go back to Econ 101" insult long before I suggested the OP might be trolling, so I think that you should be the first to sign up for the civil manners course. I'll be in the line behind you.



arkirshner said:


> Excuse me, but the sentence I quoted is not my definition of arbitrage, it is the very sentence from Wikipedia that you cited. If the definition is narrow the fault, sir, is yours.


I'm not sure this approach is helping you, but have fun with it.



> I have tried to do so for many years , as you suggest, lifelong learning is to be encouraged.


Indeed. No one can know everything, and people often believe they know more than they do. The right education can help with this.

Edit: I'm done with this thread - I don't think it's productive for anyone.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Aside from the question as the whether CT's policy is legal or illegal, fair or unfair, justified or unjustified, it is undisputed that the explanation for their policy is "to ensure everyone pays the same price", a disingenuous explanation if never there was one. I have no objection to a merchant setting his prices as he sees fit, however I do not like prevarication, particularly when it insults my intelligence. 

If CT were straight with us, its explanation would be along the lines of: " Just as Ralph Lauren has decided to charge more in the UK than he charges in the US for shirts made in Malaysia, we have decided to charge more in the US than we charge in the UK for shirts made in Turkey."


----------



## Brize (Jun 21, 2010)

thefancyman said:


> The systems were not in place in this case because US buyers were able to access CT's UK website purchase goods on it and were then charged a VAT that they are not legally obligated to pay and supposably (but I don't know the truth of this) they did not hand over the tax to the tax authorities.


That's a very, very serious accusation that's completely unsubstantiated. You suggest that Charles Tyrwhitt should be criticised for something that they have supposedly done, despite acknowledging that you are unable to establish the veracity of the claims made in this thread.

When you say that the OP and others are 'cheating the system', who are they cheating, exactly? Clearly not the UK government, because there is no obligation to pay the VAT. Clearly not the US government, because they have the opportunity to levy a tax when the goods are imported into the country and choose not to. And clearly not Charles Tyrwhitt, who set their own prices and VAT policy.


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

Brize said:


> That's a very, very serious accusation that's completely unsubstantiated. You suggest that Charles Tyrwhitt should be criticised for something that they have supposedly done, despite acknowledging that you are unable to establish the veracity of the claims made in this thread.
> 
> When you say that the OP and others are 'cheating the system', who are they cheating, exactly? Clearly not the UK government, because there is no obligation to pay the VAT. Clearly not the US government, because they have the opportunity to levy a tax when the goods are imported into the country and choose not to. And clearly not Charles Tyrwhitt, who set their own prices and VAT policy.


I didn't accuse Charles Tyrwhitt of not handing over taxes to any government authority but they did charge US customers an extra 20% for their goods represented as VAT. Those who I did accuse of cheating the system are cheating Charles Tyrwhitt because they chose to purposely bypass the US website to avoid paying US prices.

Furthermore, I'm not criticising Charles Tyrwhitt of their tax policies but the fact that they operate a dedicated US website for only US customers as well as US stores that both charge different prices but at the same time they (until recently) did nothing to prevent US customers to bypass those higher prices by ordering from their UK website.


----------



## Brize (Jun 21, 2010)

thefancyman said:


> I'm not criticising Charles Tyrwhitt of their tax policies but the fact that they operate a dedicated US for only US customers as well as US stores that both charge different prices but at the same time they (until recently) did nothing to prevemt US customers to bypass those higher prices by ordering from their UK website.


So what? It's a free, globalised market. People can buy wherever the hell they like. Why do you have such a problem with that?

Again, amazon.com is a global site that ships internationally. What does it matter to you or anyone else if I shop there or buy from amazon.co.uk? Are you suggesting that amazon.com should be censured for serving me simply because they have a UK site as well?


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

Brize said:


> So what? It's a free, globalised market. People can buy wherever the hell they like. Why do you have such a problem with that?
> 
> Again, amazon.com is a global site that ships internationally. What does it matter to you or anyone else if I shop there or buy from amazon.co.uk? Are you suggesting that amazon.com should be censured for serving me simply because they have a UK site as well?


I already explained why I don't care that you shop on amazon.com. I don't have a problem with what the OP bought in fact I have no idea what he purchased.


----------



## bobharley (Mar 28, 2011)

Racer, what gives you the expertise to preach to us? Do you deal in these matters in your profession? You speak in half-truths and know enough to be dangerous.

I am a partner in an international CPA firm and I deal with international clients on a weekly basis. I understand VAT and IRS rules. This is my livelihood. If CT wants to deny non-EU citizens the opportunity to purchase on their UK site, that is completely legal and more power to them. But, if they collect VAT, which their site says they are doing, and for which they have specifically told me they were not remitting to HM taxation, that is improper. Surely you can understand that. 

This is the last post I will make on this topic. You simply like to argue and it is a waste of time to have a reasonable discussion with someone that can't form a cogent argument.


----------



## spielerman (Jul 21, 2007)

arkirshner said:


> Actually calling the giving of a lecture, or for that matter the performance of any activity ,"facile" is a complement, although I take it you did not mean it that way. I apologize if you took my comment to suggest everyone go back to school, I only intended to suggest one side of this argument go back to school. Econ 101 was suggested. But when you start calling those on the side of the argument opposite yours "trolls",whether you meant to include me or not, in your case the addition of a course in civil manners is long overdue.


+1 here....

Under Racers statements and weak references to wikipedia as valid source of data and intelligence, we should all fear his posts... unfortunately these exchanges are not establishing a discussion forum..


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

arkirshner said:


> If CT were straight with us, its explanation would be along the lines of: " Just as Ralph Lauren has decided to charge more in the UK than he charges in the US for shirts made in Malaysia, we have decided to charge more in the US than we charge in the UK for shirts made in Turkey."


This made me laugh.

More generally:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

That was an amusing read.

Bottom line is either CT is breaking the law by holding onto the VAT tax or they are not.

If they are breaking the law...someone should report them for unpaid VAT 
If they are not breaking the law...go buy your shirts from someone else.

I have no horse in this game...I think they make cheap crap and have no interest in buying from them in the first place.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

*Just got this response from Charles Tyrwhitt:*

Thank you for your comments on our recent pricing changes, we always appreciate feedback from our customers. I'd like to take the opportunity to give a few more details on this change in addition to those in our brochure & on our website. 

Our international business has grown significantly in recent times and in light of this we have now conducted some thorough analysis on the costs associated with this. This review has shown us that there are greatly increased costs on international orders beyond those covered in our delivery charge. 

In order to keep offering our great products to customers from around the globe we need to reflect these costs in our prices. Instead of setting up different pricing structures for each country on our sterling site, which would add further cost and complexity, we felt that the simplest solution would be to set the same sterling price for all customers on our UK site. This allows us to cover these increased costs and offer a fair and consistent pricing policy. 

The key additional cost that we pay for US customers is import duty, we pay these directly so that our customers do not get additional costs on receipt of their products. The second significant difference is that we offer free returns to our US customers where as these are charged for in UK and rest of the world. The costs associated with these are included as part of the selling price in the US $ site but not the UK sterling site hence the need for the change. 

Finally, thank you for pointing out the issue with the terms on the site, this has now been amended.

I hope that you still feel we offer high quality products at extremely good value for money and that you do choose to purchase from us again in the future.


----------



## ilikeyourstyle (Apr 24, 2007)

Andy said:


> ...The key additional cost that we pay for US customers is import duty, we pay these directly so that our customers do not get additional costs on receipt of their products...


While this quote from CT may be true for American orders, my Canadian orders from CT have been hit by import tax and duties (13% + 18%) repeatedly. CT is not pre-paying these on my behalf. I just tried to order from CT today, and the VAT was not deducted from the final order price. I did not complete my order. I guess Canadians get hurt more by this policy change than Americans.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

So now CT is changing its story: The "VAT fairness" spiel has been flushed down the memory hole, and it's all about "higher costs." This whole episode smacks of spin and general shiftiness, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. 

If they had just raised prices and been straight about it, I'd probably still be a customer, albeit probably a less frequent one. But no--they had to be clever and try to pass it off under false colors and doubletalk, and that's just offensive.


----------



## CPH (Apr 11, 2009)

Couldn't agree more.


----------



## closerlook (Sep 3, 2008)

for what its worth, I am trying to get rid of my CTs if anyone wants them:
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...d-Thrift-Store-Exchange&p=1210088#post1210088


----------



## Deep Classic (Apr 23, 2011)

Andy said:


> *Just got this response from Charles Tyrwhitt:*
> 
> Thank you for your comments on our recent pricing changes, we always appreciate feedback from our customers. I'd like to take the opportunity to give a few more details on this change in addition to those in our brochure & on our website.
> 
> ...


Thank you, Andy, for making this inquiry to CT. I sincerely appreciate your interest. Sorry for my delayed reply - I have been on business travel for most of the week.

I must say, however, that I am extremely disappointed in CT's reply. In particular, I checked the changes that were made to their T&C's and this is the only change I could find:

*Here is the old T&C 6.1* - "The price of any Products will be as quoted on our Website from time to time, except in cases of obvious error. These prices *include VAT* but exclude delivery costs, which will be added to the total amount due." (emphasis added)

*Here is the new T&C 6.1* - "The price of any Products will be as quoted on our Website from time to time, except in cases of obvious error. These prices exclude delivery costs, which will be added to the total amount due."

(If I missed something else, please let me know.)

So, what CT has done is to no longer explicitly state whether or not their prices include VAT. Whether the prices actually do include VAT now after their quick edits is apparently a mystery that only CT is entitled to know.

We do have to remember, however, that there is a *legal requirement* that merchants selling to the public must include VAT in their posted prices. Repeating from my original post, here's what is says at Her Majesty's Revenue and Custom's website:

https://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/sectors/consumers/basics.htm

"*Prices in advertisements, catalogues and price lists* Products advertised in outlets, magazines, on the internet, or shown in catalogues, price lists and other literature may be aimed at the consumer, businesses, or both. If they're only meant for the general public, they'll show you a price including VAT. This is a legal requirement."

I further looked into the apparently not uncommon, but unlawful, posting of prices in the UK ex-VAT for merchants selling to the public. This thread was most helpful:

https://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=198814

On page 4 of the thread, the poster "Jamie M" directs readers to a number of publications that prohibit the posting of prices ex-VAT. Here is the posting:

"There is if you are selling to consumers. It's the Price Marking Order 2004.

There is a Trading Standards guide available from most council websites. For example:

https://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/CHt...shx?id=890&p=0

It's stated on Business Link as well:

https://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg...type=RESOURCES

And there is this guide also:

https://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46254.pdf"

I quote from the referenced UK Department for Business and Enterprise Regulatory Reform (BERR) pamphlet which reflects "relevant legal obligations, in particular those provisions of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 20081 (CPRs) which are relevant to the giving of information about prices." On page 21 of the publication, the following clear statement is made:

"2.3 Valued Added Tax (VAT)

Price indications to consumers

2.3.1 All price indications you give to consumers, by whatever means, should
include VAT. This total price must be displayed prominently so that consumers
can see it."

There are similar statements in the other referenced documents. Please check them out if you are interested in UK consumer law.

So what does this all mean? First, CT is required by law to post VAT-inclusive prices in the UK on its websites selling to the public regardless of what it says or doesn't say in their T&C's. If CT is posting prices ex-VAT, that is unlawful. If they are posting prices that include VAT as required by law, then they must remit the VAT to taxing authorities. They simply cannot pocket the VAT under the guise of increasing costs, fairness, or any other excuse.

This practice is extensively discussed in the referenced UK Business Forum thread and in other places easily locatable on the web. It is clearly a deceptive business practice designed to mislead the consumer and give merchants posting VAT-exclusive prices an advantage. In CT's case, the practice gives the consumer the impression that he is required to pay the VAT by law when, in fact, CT has used the ruse of apparent government authority to pocket the ostensible tax.

As one poster said, eventually one will have to vote with their feet. I encourage all honest buyers to refuse to buy from CT until they engage in proper business practices. This type of behavior cannot be allowed to propagate or be allowed to give CT a competitive advantage over its honest competitors.

In the meantime, I will buy from Lewin, H&H, Duchamp, and all the other honest Jermyn Street sellers. I will continue to press this matter to resolution.


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

I had previously availed myself of the lower price on the sterling site, which excluded VAT. It was a very good deal on some nice looking shirts, although I rarely wear them because I find the fit awkward on me. I would not have purchased the same shirts on the U.S. site at the time because of the price. I like the fit of my BB shirts rather better and on sale they are a better value in my opinion.

Personally, I don't care why CT has raised their prices. It is entirely up to them what they charge. The fact remains that the prices have gone up, and as a result I will likely not purchase from them again unless the price drops to a point I think it is worth while. At the previous price point, it seemed like a good deal. Now, less so.


----------



## Richard Minks (Mar 1, 2010)

*Their quality has dropped, now this!!!*



Hanzo said:


> For what it's worth, I just ran a quick comparison.
> 
> For the same shirt, you could order it from the UK website for 19.95GBP or the US website for $39.
> 
> ...


Your math is wrong. The UK price has VAT. The UK price ex VAT would be $27.27. Now Let people draw whatever conclusion they want with proper information.

19.95GBP / 1.2 = 16.625GBP then multiply by exchange rate (1.64) to get $27.27


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

bobharley said:


> They say they are doing this to be fair to all their customers. The problem is, not all of their customers live in the EU where this is a 20% VAT. Thus, at a minimum, CT is selling to us in the US for at a 20% higher profit margin. In essence, they are collecting VAT from us but not forwarding it on to HM Taxing. Somehow, that just doesn't seem fair to me.


CT offerings were always more expensive in the U.S. anyways. I was ordered through the U.K. website.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Hi. Any reference in consumer law within the EU that VAT must be included in the price does not mean that any VAT should be added to export sales. In fact, it cannot be. Export sales (sales out of the EU) cannot include VAT. 

That is a matter of intracommunity VAT law, the VAT directives as implemented by the member states. Consumer law simply states that any VAT must be included in consumer pricing. For sales on which VAT is not added (I think for example books in the UK, I think they are VAT excluded, or export sales, drugs, or sales to some NATO entities, etc.) these consumer law regulations don't apply in the sense that VAT must be included in the price (which is governed by tax law).

What CT does is essentially set a higher price (the same as a VAT-inclusive price). They are not claiming that that price includes VAT. 

They seem to feel that they have extra costs for export sales and that the easiest way to remedy that (rather than increasing price for all customers) is to let the price ex vat on export sales be the same as the intra EU price including VAT.


----------



## Deep Classic (Apr 23, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> Hi. Any reference in consumer law within the EU that VAT must be included in the price does not mean that any VAT should be added to export sales. In fact, it cannot be. Export sales (sales out of the EU) cannot include VAT.
> 
> That is a matter of intracommunity VAT law, the VAT directives as implemented by the member states. Consumer law simply states that any VAT must be included in consumer pricing. For sales on which VAT is not added (I think for example books in the UK, I think they are VAT excluded, or export sales, drugs, or sales to some NATO entities, etc.) these consumer law regulations don't apply in the sense that VAT must be included in the price (which is governed by tax law).
> 
> ...


This is undoubtedly what CT intended to do. The typical customer would, however, never be able to understand this opaque valuation and taxation scheme. The uniform posted pricing requirement is supposed to allow the consumer to make an intelligent purchase decision in comparison with other alternatives. Burying all this in the small print of tortured T&C's represents the worst in merchant practices and consumer deception. Shop elsewhere!


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

I received a letter from C.T. in response to the one that I sent to Nicholas Charles Tyrwhitt Wheeler Esq. earlier this month. (By the way, it is very poorly written.)

https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/p8260828.jpg/


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)




----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Hah, where is that from Trip?


----------



## Deep Classic (Apr 23, 2011)

hockeyinsider said:


> I received a letter from C.T. in response to the one that I sent to Nicholas Charles Tyrwhitt Wheeler Esq. earlier this month. (By the way, it is very poorly written.)
> 
> https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/843/p8260828.jpg/


This paper would have been better used in the loo.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Deep Classic said:


> This paper would have been better used in the loo.


I'm reminded of Max Reger's legendary putdown of a reviewer. "I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. Your review is in front of me. Very soon it will be behind me."


----------

