General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[EC ed]

There is a ton of contradiction in PayPal's own rules. In one breath it says you can't pay for goods or services using personal. In the next it says personal is for things like paying your friend for lunch. Well that is payment for both goods and services. You're paying your friend back for the service of money lending (s/he extended you a line of credit in the amount of your lunch with the expectation that it be paid back in a timely matter.)

 

As I allude to above, the missing link that would reconcile this apparent contradiction is the definition of "goods or services."

 

IF those terms were defined as "objects or services purchased from a business or merchant," then there is no contradiction, because your friend is not a business or merchant. Is this what they really mean by "goods and services"...it sure would reconcile a few things if so. Of course, they leave us guessing, because they don't define "goods and services."

[skypinkblu]

 

Doesn't PP send out a 1099 when you sell more than $20k? My guess is, that if you do get one, it's going to trigger something in their system.

 

I believe that when I got personal payments in past years, they were included in the amount that PP looked at when determining if you would get a 1099.

 

I know one of the reasons I never wanted payments going to my account in charity auctions(besides the fact I didn't want anyone questioning me), is I didn't want to trigger a 1099 for items that I didn't sell.

[crassus]

So if you are buying and selling regularly here on the Boards you are acting like a merchant and all transactions are public and not "personal" paypal.

 

Of course, this leads to its own free-standing discussion...that is, when does an individual become a merchant/business....?

 

I would argue that buying and selling regularly here on the Boards is not sufficient to meet that definition. Again, it depends on circumstances and intent.

 

Take me, for example. I buy and sell a lot from and to people on these boards. When I buy and sell, I am rearranging my collection, period. I am selling books I no longer want to collect, and buying books that I want to collect. In most cases, when I sell a book, I'm ecstatic if I can just break even - I guarantee you that in the majority of my sales, I lose money....and I do it a lot of times. I'm OK with that...I enjoy the books for awhile, and I view the "losses" as just part of the cost of evolving my collection. Is that consistent with me behaving like a business/merchant? I would argue not.

 

I understand, and for me it is largely the same, money in goes back into more books, most of which go back into the collection, but the simple lack of a consistent profit, or even lets say just breaking even or taking the occasional loss are all things otherwise characteristic of businesses also. Some businesses go years at the waterline before starting to show profit. For Paypal the simplest way to track merchant-like behaviour is volume of transactions. Whether or not any profit is made could be argued to be irrelevant, no?

[EC ed]

Of course, this leads to its own free-standing discussion...that is, when does an individual become a merchant/business....?

 

I would argue that buying and selling regularly here on the Boards is not sufficient to meet that definition. Again, it depends on circumstances and intent.

 

To keep pounding on this for a bit...so, how do we tell when we cross the threshold from collector to business? Well, the IRS reporting rules provide one method (with my answers concerning my comic activity in red):

 

FS-2007-18, April 2007

The Internal Revenue Service reminds taxpayers to follow appropriate guidelines when determining whether an activity is a business or a hobby...

 

In order to make this determination, taxpayers should consider the following factors:

Does the time and effort put into the activity indicate an intention to make a profit? No

Does the taxpayer depend on income from the activity? No

If there are losses, are they due to circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control or did they occur in the start-up phase of the business? No

Has the taxpayer changed methods of operation to improve profitability? No

Does the taxpayer or his/her advisors have the knowledge needed to carry on the activity as a successful business? Arguable

Has the taxpayer made a profit in similar activities in the past? No

Does the activity make a profit in some years? Basically No

Can the taxpayer expect to make a profit in the future from the appreciation of assets used in the activity? Maybe

 

The IRS presumes that an activity is carried on for profit if it makes a profit during at least three of the last five tax years, including the current year Nope

 

See there, I'm a "hobbyist," not a "business." So, are comics that I sell considered "goods?" Depends how you define "goods."

 

I'll stop now...you get my point...I need to go spend some time on the activity on which my income DOES depend

[EC ed]

For Paypal the simplest way to track merchant-like behaviour is volume of transactions.

 

I agree that it's hard for PayPal to tell the difference, because they can't know the reality by observing transaction volume.

[jaybuck43]

20,000 AND 200 transactions. If you do 1 transaction for $20,000 they won't send out a 1099.

[crassus]

Of course, this leads to its own free-standing discussion...that is, when does an individual become a merchant/business....?

 

I would argue that buying and selling regularly here on the Boards is not sufficient to meet that definition. Again, it depends on circumstances and intent.

 

To keep pounding on this for a bit...so, how do we tell when we cross the threshold from collector to business? Well, the IRS reporting rules provide one method (with my answers concerning my comic activity in red):

 

FS-2007-18, April 2007

The Internal Revenue Service reminds taxpayers to follow appropriate guidelines when determining whether an activity is a business or a hobby...

 

In order to make this determination, taxpayers should consider the following factors:

Does the time and effort put into the activity indicate an intention to make a profit? No

Does the taxpayer depend on income from the activity? No

If there are losses, are they due to circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control or did they occur in the start-up phase of the business? No

Has the taxpayer changed methods of operation to improve profitability? No

Does the taxpayer or his/her advisors have the knowledge needed to carry on the activity as a successful business? Arguable

Has the taxpayer made a profit in similar activities in the past? No

Does the activity make a profit in some years? Basically No

Can the taxpayer expect to make a profit in the future from the appreciation of assets used in the activity? Maybe

 

The IRS presumes that an activity is carried on for profit if it makes a profit during at least three of the last five tax years, including the current year Nope

 

See there, I'm a "hobbyist," not a "business." So, can I sell "goods and services?" Depends how you define those.

 

I'll stop now...you get my point...I need to go spend some time on the activity on which my income DOES depend

 

Thanks for posting this, as it does clarify many points under discussion. I would answer most of those questions as you have, but honestly for #2 I do put a lot of effort (howsoever defined) in trying to be profitable. In sum, I sure won't be quitting my day job. But that said, I think many of us "hobbyists", if we could, would love to have "comics pay for comics", which is the ideal, and that requires profitability to grow a collection.

 

It requires acting, thinking and planning as a business would to minimize losses, maximize profits, and grow. To me the dividing line is still nebulous if we are discussing intent.

 

I do accept your argument that by these IRS questions many of us would not be defined as merchants/businesses in any formal sense.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

LINK

 

Can I use Venmo to pay someone for goods or services?

No. Venmo is designed for payments between friends and people who know and trust one another.

 

Just take a look at that mess. "No," period. Then, the second sentence follows....it's as if "they" cannot comprehend the situation where I might buy a physical object from a non-business/non-merchant personal friend OR individual that I know and trust. Literally taken, that two-sentence combination there precludes that possibility. My conclusion is that they must be defining "goods or services" to mean objects or services purchased from businesses/merchants. Right?

 

If so, that might bear some relevance to yesterday's discussion, given that PayPal owns the company that joined those two sentences together.

 

 

I agree completely. IMO this is the relevant distinction, and while not perfect, it is broadly conform to the reality of private versus public transactions. It does not solve all the issues though.

 

If you act and transact like a business, meaning systematically and with regularity, you are a merchant, if you act and transact only occasionally, fitfully, circumstantially, like a private individual would, you are not a merchant. Each transaction on its own proves nothing, and thus Paypal/Venmo is only being truthful in having an ambiguous definition, as a pattern of behaviour is the only measure possible.

 

I agree that it is possible to argue that "personal" paypal can comprehend purchases of good and services from private individuals but that would only be on the assumption that there was no pattern of behaviour suggesting that it is in fact evidence of an ongoing business.

 

RMAs argument has been consistent that the issue is not a single transaction, but a pattern of behaviour. So if you are essentially running a business you cannot say "hey, but each individual transaction was to somebody I know personally as a friend" because if it is regular and constant you are acting like a merchant, whether they are really your friends or not.

 

So if you are buying and selling regularly here on the Boards you are acting like a merchant and all transactions are public and not "personal" paypal. If your purchases or sales are genuinely fitful, occasional, circumstantial (charity, hard times, sudden car repairs etc) than I believe Paypal has allowed for this reality in their policy. They will, up to a point, give you the benefit of the doubt, unless or until a pattern of behaviour shows otherwise.

 

I'm sorry this discussion became so dramatic as there are interesting parallels between how governments handle these issues in private tax declarations/audits and how Paypal approaches regular versus personal payments.

 

If occasionally Joe sells his best friend John a stack of used trades because they are fanboy readers, it is highly unlikely the government will care enough to pursue Joe for the 5% GST normally collected on all retail sales. If however over time Joe's finances show larger and larger purchases of inventory that are then resold for larger and larger incomes, they will sooner or later pursue him if it is undeclared. Above a certain amount, I think its 35k?, he would also have to pay the government the GST he would be expected to have collected.

 

Its all thresholds of patterns of behaviour, and another reason it is hard to make damning judgments of singular acts, at least in this context.

 

 

 

 

 

Good catch, Ed. I was perusing Venmo's site and terms yesterday, but I didn't see that one.

 

Yes, Crassus, this is a good summation of the issue. Though, personally, I would suggest that one ought to pay for a service ANY time one uses it, Paypal has allowed for the occasional and infrequent transaction between friends to be a "pass."

 

It's like yard sales. Several municipalties have rules regarding the frequency of these sales, and most of the time, governmental tax agencies don't bother with the occasional sale.

 

But....if you're having a yard sale every other weekend, then you're going to be having a problem. Same here.

 

The problem then comes down to "what is the line between frequent and infrequent"? As I said, that line is ethically solved by treating every purchase as a purchase, but aside from that, it is really up to Paypal to determine what is acceptable and what is not...not the individuals using Paypal. Paypal graciously allows exceptions to their rules, but they are exceptions to their rules, not "workarounds" for people who don't want to pay just because they don't have to.

 

In other words: If Paypal gives someone the right to use a Personal payment for a purchase, whether it's one time, or every time, that is not stealing, because it's Paypal's right to give or deny that ability to users of their service.

 

If someone takes that "right", on their own, without asking Paypal's permission...that is stealing, even if it is a single act, and even if Paypal forgives them after the fact. It's not their right to decide on their own what Paypal will and should allow. It's all about motive and intent.

 

And we're back to the coke from the store owner again.

 

And...frankly...if a buyer was actually friends with, and cared about, his or her selling friend, they wouldn't put his/her Paypal account at risk of losing the ability to do Personal transactions by sending them Personal payments for purchases at all. As mentioned before, there are people here who have lost that ability, and it makes it very hard to pay them back for Artist fees, or grading fees, or any of the other "pass through" fees that Personal was intended for. They complain about the fee, but if they hadn't been chowderheads to begin with, they wouldn't have lost the ability.

 

Very, very good discussion, gentlemen. If everyone kept a level head, a lot of serious issues like this could be hammered out, without the need for any drama. A boy can dream, right...?

 

[seanfingh]

via Imgflip Meme Maker

[RockMyAmadeus]

There's still some posting in the Copper Age forum that believe previews are first appearances. You still have a lot of work ahead of you, RMA.

 

Also...even I won't argue with lost causes.

I wanted to see you try.

 

I did. So did many others. But if they want to think that previews count, they can certainly believe that. Is it an ethical issue? No. So, you make your case, and then move on. Some people choose not to be reasoned with, and that's ok. If someone wants to believe the moon is made of bleu cheese salad dressing...despite all evidence to the contrary....that person probably cannot be reasoned with about much of anything, so you just move on. They can believe what they'd like, irrational as it may be.

 

That puts the lie to the whole "you just argue to argue" claim, by the way. If there's no hope of reason...there's no point in arguing.

[RockMyAmadeus]

via Imgflip Meme Maker

 

No one was called a thief.

 

Thank you, though, for taking yet another unprovoked shot.

 

What is that, like 32,765?

 

And people actually defend your behavior with me. That's the amazing part!

[RockMyAmadeus]

There is a ton of contradiction in PayPal's own rules. In one breath it says you can't pay for goods or services using personal. In the next it says personal is for things like paying your friend for lunch. Well that is payment for both goods and services. You're paying your friend back for the service of money lending (s/he extended you a line of credit in the amount of your lunch with the expectation that it be paid back in a timely matter.) Arguably its also possible you are paying for goods. It is literally a sub contract (in that it is a contract for a sub) You are buying a sub from your friend who bought it from the retail location.

 

It's not a contradiction. Your friend isn't selling either a sandwich, or a "sandwich buying service", nor is he/she operating as a "loan agency." It's a pass through, and trying to call it a "sub-contract" stretches the meaning of that term far, far beyond all credulity.

 

In other words, you didn't buy the sandwich from your friend and your friend isn't running a loan agency to help anyone buy sandwiches.

 

If your friend was loaning, not just you, but everyone "lunch money", then you'd have a case. But they're not. It's all about intent and motive.

 

And even if you managed to convince someone that this was, in fact, a "sub-contract"....again, stretching the meaning of that term past all credulity...it still comes down to the fact that it's Paypal's decision how they are going to allow users to use their services, not yours, mine, or anyone else's.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

So if you are buying and selling regularly here on the Boards you are acting like a merchant and all transactions are public and not "personal" paypal.

 

Of course, this leads to its own free-standing discussion...that is, when does an individual become a merchant/business....?

 

I would argue that buying and selling regularly here on the Boards is not sufficient to meet that definition. Again, it depends on circumstances and intent.

 

Take me, for example. I buy and sell a lot from and to people on these boards. When I buy and sell, I am rearranging my collection, period. I am selling books I no longer want to collect, and buying books that I want to collect. In most cases, when I sell a book, I'm ecstatic if I can just break even - I guarantee you that in the majority of my sales, I lose money....and I do it a lot of times. I'm OK with that...I enjoy the books for awhile, and I view the "losses" as just part of the cost of evolving my collection. Is that consistent with me behaving like a business/merchant? I would argue not.

 

I sell books to buy more books. If I didn't have to sell books to buy more books, I would never sell anything. But the fact that I sell, regardless of why, makes me a merchant, for the purposes of definition, by virtue of me exchanging money for goods and/or services.

 

The solution, then, isn't whether one personally believes one is a "merchant" or not, because that justifiably opens the door to never claiming merchant status, for anyone. In that case, literally anything goes.

 

So, if relying on one's own personal definition of oneself doesn't work, the solution is to rely on what Paypal (and others) define it is, for the purposes of using their services. And they say "if you exchange money for a good or service, even between friends or family (and, again, one could call ANYONE their "friend" to justify non-payment) you are a subject to our fees."

 

And, since Paypal owns and provides the service, they can make exceptions as they see fit. Not as I see fit.

[bababooey]

LINK

 

Can I use Venmo to pay someone for goods or services?

No. Venmo is designed for payments between friends and people who know and trust one another.

 

Just take a look at that mess. "No," period. Then, the second sentence follows....it's as if "they" cannot comprehend the situation where I might buy a physical object from a non-business/non-merchant personal friend OR individual that I know and trust. Literally taken, that two-sentence combination there precludes that possibility. My conclusion is that they must be defining "goods or services" to mean objects or services purchased from businesses/merchants. Right?

 

If so, that might bear some relevance to yesterday's discussion, given that PayPal owns the company that joined those two sentences together.

 

 

I agree completely. IMO this is the relevant distinction, and while not perfect, it is broadly conform to the reality of private versus public transactions. It does not solve all the issues though.

 

If you act and transact like a business, meaning systematically and with regularity, you are a merchant, if you act and transact only occasionally, fitfully, circumstantially, like a private individual would, you are not a merchant. Each transaction on its own proves nothing, and thus Paypal/Venmo is only being truthful in having an ambiguous definition, as a pattern of behaviour is the only measure possible.

 

I agree that it is possible to argue that "personal" paypal can comprehend purchases of good and services from private individuals but that would only be on the assumption that there was no pattern of behaviour suggesting that it is in fact evidence of an ongoing business.

 

RMAs argument has been consistent that the issue is not a single transaction, but a pattern of behaviour. So if you are essentially running a business you cannot say "hey, but each individual transaction was to somebody I know personally as a friend" because if it is regular and constant you are acting like a merchant, whether they are really your friends or not.

 

So if you are buying and selling regularly here on the Boards you are acting like a merchant and all transactions are public and not "personal" paypal. If your purchases or sales are genuinely fitful, occasional, circumstantial (charity, hard times, sudden car repairs etc) than I believe Paypal has allowed for this reality in their policy. They will, up to a point, give you the benefit of the doubt, unless or until a pattern of behaviour shows otherwise.

 

I'm sorry this discussion became so dramatic as there are interesting parallels between how governments handle these issues in private tax declarations/audits and how Paypal approaches regular versus personal payments.

 

If occasionally Joe sells his best friend John a stack of used trades because they are fanboy readers, it is highly unlikely the government will care enough to pursue Joe for the 5% GST normally collected on all retail sales. If however over time Joe's finances show larger and larger purchases of inventory that are then resold for larger and larger incomes, they will sooner or later pursue him if it is undeclared. Above a certain amount, I think its 35k?, he would also have to pay the government the GST he would be expected to have collected.

 

Its all thresholds of patterns of behaviour, and another reason it is hard to make damning judgments of singular acts, at least in this context.

 

 

 

 

 

Good catch, Ed. I was perusing Venmo's site and terms yesterday, but I didn't see that one.

 

Yes, Crassus, this is a good summation of the issue. Though, personally, I would suggest that one ought to pay for a service ANY time one uses it, Paypal has allowed for the occasional and infrequent transaction between friends to be a "pass."

 

It's like yard sales. Several municipalties have rules regarding the frequency of these sales, and most of the time, governmental tax agencies don't bother with the occasional sale.

 

But....if you're having a yard sale every other weekend, then you're going to be having a problem. Same here.

 

The problem then comes down to "what is the line between frequent and infrequent"? As I said, that line is ethically solved by treating every purchase as a purchase, but aside from that, it is really up to Paypal to determine what is acceptable and what is not...not the individuals using Paypal. Paypal graciously allows exceptions to their rules, but they are exceptions to their rules, not "workarounds" for people who don't want to pay just because they don't have to.

 

In other words: If Paypal gives someone the right to use a Personal payment for a purchase, whether it's one time, or every time, that is not stealing, because it's Paypal's right to give or deny that ability to users of their service.

 

If someone takes that "right", on their own, without asking Paypal's permission...that is stealing, even if it is a single act, and even if Paypal forgives them after the fact. It's not their right to decide on their own what Paypal will and should allow. It's all about motive and intent.

 

And we're back to the coke from the store owner again.

 

And...frankly...if a buyer was actually friends with, and cared about, his or her selling friend, they wouldn't put his/her Paypal account at risk of losing the ability to do Personal transactions by sending them Personal payments for purchases at all. As mentioned before, there are people here who have lost that ability, and it makes it very hard to pay them back for Artist fees, or grading fees, or any of the other "pass through" fees that Personal was intended for. They complain about the fee, but if they hadn't been chowderheads to begin with, they wouldn't have lost the ability.

 

Very, very good discussion, gentlemen. If everyone kept a level head, a lot of serious issues like this could be hammered out, without the need for any drama. A boy can dream, right...?

 

Please explain why these "pass through" outlays which are out-of-pocket business expenses associated with someone (your friend) doing business and getting paid for doing it......is considered by you to be the same as paying back someone for lunch and not subject to fees?

 

[1Cool]

Definition of a thief:

a person who steals, especially secretly or without open force; one guilty of theft or larceny.

 

So if you say someone is stealing you also call them a thief. You can't call someone a thief but say "I never said you stole anything" - they kind of go hand in hand.

Edited August 19, 2015 by 1Cool

[RockMyAmadeus]

There is a ton of contradiction in PayPal's own rules. In one breath it says you can't pay for goods or services using personal. In the next it says personal is for things like paying your friend for lunch. Well that is payment for both goods and services. You're paying your friend back for the service of money lending (s/he extended you a line of credit in the amount of your lunch with the expectation that it be paid back in a timely matter.)

 

As I allude to above, the missing link that would reconcile this apparent contradiction is the definition of "goods or services."

 

IF those terms were defined as "objects or services purchased from a business or merchant," then there is no contradiction, because your friend is not a business or merchant. Is this what they really mean by "goods and services"...it sure would reconcile a few things if so. Of course, they leave us guessing, because they don't define "goods and services."

 

Sure they do.

 

If you exchange money for a tangible item...or you pay someone to provide a service to you....that's "goods and services."

 

It's not about WHO you're sending money to that is the issue with Paypal...it is WHY you're sending money. That's why they don't bother with what someone's "friend" may be, and is this person a merchant, and is that person not a merchant, and all sorts of needlessly complex scenarios.

 

If I say "Ed, I like your Tales from the Crypt #37. I'd like to buy it from you."

 

You say "ok, sure. $200."

 

I say "ok, here's the money."

 

You say "ok, here's the book."

 

That's a transaction, and subject to the fees.

 

If I say "Ed, I'd like you to come over and mow my lawn."

 

You say "ok, I'll be over Sunday. $20."

 

I say "ok, deal."

 

That's a transaction, and subject to the fees.

 

It needn't be unnecessarily complex.

 

Are you a merchant? Do you have a comic book store or a run a lawn mowing service? No. But did you exchange an item or a service you owned for money I owned? Yes. Then it's a purchase, and subject to a transaction fee.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Definition of a thief:

a person who steals, especially secretly or without open force; one guilty of theft or larceny.

 

So if you say someone is stealing you also call them a thief. You can't call someone a thief but say "I never said you stole anything" - they kind of go hand in hand.

 

As I said before....

 

Calling an ACT stealing doesn't mean you are calling someone a THIEF.

 

People obviously get hot and bothered at being labeled "thieves", and rightfully so. Being a thief is a bad thing, and should be discouraged at all levels of society.

 

We have all stolen. We are not all thieves. There's a real, genuine difference between the two. There are thieves reading this as we speak, people who see no problem with "getting ahead" at the expense of others, whenever and wherever they can. And there are people who are not thieves, who nonetheless justify the occasional theft here and there, but do NOT take any and every opportunity they have to steal.

 

It is about intent and motive, not (necessarily) acts.

 

[1Cool]

Sorry if someone else has already posted this but I found this on Paypal's website. It makes it pretty clear that the purchase of comic books would not be a personal payment.

 

"You can send money to make a purchase or to make a personal payment to someone.

 

If you’re making a purchase, there are 2 payment types:

•Goods - Select this payment type when you’re paying for something that you didn’t buy on eBay.

•Services - Use this payment type when your purchase is not a product but a service (for example, work performed for you by someone else).

 

When you make a purchase, the seller pays a small fee to receive your money.

 

If you’re sending a personal payment, payment types include:

•Gift - Select this payment type when you’re sending money as a gift for a birthday or other special occasion.

•Payment Owed - Use this payment type for things like reimbursing a friend for your share of a restaurant check, or repaying money that a family member loaned you.

•Cash Advance - Select this payment type when the money you’re sending isn’t for the purchase of goods or services. (Remember that your card issuer may charge a fee for cash advances.)

•Living Expense - Use this payment type when you need to pay regular, recurring expenses like rent or utilities.

•Other - Select this payment type for anything that’s not covered by another payment type.

 

You can make a personal payment to anyone in the U.S. for free. Just make sure that you pay for the entire payment using your PayPal balance or bank account. A small fee applies to payments made with a debit or credit card. For more information, click Fees at the bottom of any page."

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

LINK

 

Can I use Venmo to pay someone for goods or services?

No. Venmo is designed for payments between friends and people who know and trust one another.

 

Just take a look at that mess. "No," period. Then, the second sentence follows....it's as if "they" cannot comprehend the situation where I might buy a physical object from a non-business/non-merchant personal friend OR individual that I know and trust. Literally taken, that two-sentence combination there precludes that possibility. My conclusion is that they must be defining "goods or services" to mean objects or services purchased from businesses/merchants. Right?

 

If so, that might bear some relevance to yesterday's discussion, given that PayPal owns the company that joined those two sentences together.

 

 

I agree completely. IMO this is the relevant distinction, and while not perfect, it is broadly conform to the reality of private versus public transactions. It does not solve all the issues though.

 

If you act and transact like a business, meaning systematically and with regularity, you are a merchant, if you act and transact only occasionally, fitfully, circumstantially, like a private individual would, you are not a merchant. Each transaction on its own proves nothing, and thus Paypal/Venmo is only being truthful in having an ambiguous definition, as a pattern of behaviour is the only measure possible.

 

I agree that it is possible to argue that "personal" paypal can comprehend purchases of good and services from private individuals but that would only be on the assumption that there was no pattern of behaviour suggesting that it is in fact evidence of an ongoing business.

 

RMAs argument has been consistent that the issue is not a single transaction, but a pattern of behaviour. So if you are essentially running a business you cannot say "hey, but each individual transaction was to somebody I know personally as a friend" because if it is regular and constant you are acting like a merchant, whether they are really your friends or not.

 

So if you are buying and selling regularly here on the Boards you are acting like a merchant and all transactions are public and not "personal" paypal. If your purchases or sales are genuinely fitful, occasional, circumstantial (charity, hard times, sudden car repairs etc) than I believe Paypal has allowed for this reality in their policy. They will, up to a point, give you the benefit of the doubt, unless or until a pattern of behaviour shows otherwise.

 

I'm sorry this discussion became so dramatic as there are interesting parallels between how governments handle these issues in private tax declarations/audits and how Paypal approaches regular versus personal payments.

 

If occasionally Joe sells his best friend John a stack of used trades because they are fanboy readers, it is highly unlikely the government will care enough to pursue Joe for the 5% GST normally collected on all retail sales. If however over time Joe's finances show larger and larger purchases of inventory that are then resold for larger and larger incomes, they will sooner or later pursue him if it is undeclared. Above a certain amount, I think its 35k?, he would also have to pay the government the GST he would be expected to have collected.

 

Its all thresholds of patterns of behaviour, and another reason it is hard to make damning judgments of singular acts, at least in this context.

 

 

 

 

 

Good catch, Ed. I was perusing Venmo's site and terms yesterday, but I didn't see that one.

 

Yes, Crassus, this is a good summation of the issue. Though, personally, I would suggest that one ought to pay for a service ANY time one uses it, Paypal has allowed for the occasional and infrequent transaction between friends to be a "pass."

 

It's like yard sales. Several municipalties have rules regarding the frequency of these sales, and most of the time, governmental tax agencies don't bother with the occasional sale.

 

But....if you're having a yard sale every other weekend, then you're going to be having a problem. Same here.

 

The problem then comes down to "what is the line between frequent and infrequent"? As I said, that line is ethically solved by treating every purchase as a purchase, but aside from that, it is really up to Paypal to determine what is acceptable and what is not...not the individuals using Paypal. Paypal graciously allows exceptions to their rules, but they are exceptions to their rules, not "workarounds" for people who don't want to pay just because they don't have to.

 

In other words: If Paypal gives someone the right to use a Personal payment for a purchase, whether it's one time, or every time, that is not stealing, because it's Paypal's right to give or deny that ability to users of their service.

 

If someone takes that "right", on their own, without asking Paypal's permission...that is stealing, even if it is a single act, and even if Paypal forgives them after the fact. It's not their right to decide on their own what Paypal will and should allow. It's all about motive and intent.

 

And we're back to the coke from the store owner again.

 

And...frankly...if a buyer was actually friends with, and cared about, his or her selling friend, they wouldn't put his/her Paypal account at risk of losing the ability to do Personal transactions by sending them Personal payments for purchases at all. As mentioned before, there are people here who have lost that ability, and it makes it very hard to pay them back for Artist fees, or grading fees, or any of the other "pass through" fees that Personal was intended for. They complain about the fee, but if they hadn't been chowderheads to begin with, they wouldn't have lost the ability.

 

Very, very good discussion, gentlemen. If everyone kept a level head, a lot of serious issues like this could be hammered out, without the need for any drama. A boy can dream, right...?

 

Please explain why these "pass through" outlays which are out-of-pocket business expenses associated with someone (your friend) doing business and getting paid for doing it......is considered by you to be the same as paying back someone for lunch and not subject to fees?

 

 

Artist charges $10 per sig. I get 20 books signed. Artist charges $200. Facilitator pays that $200.

 

That $200 is paid back by me to the Facilitator via Paypal personal, and has nothing to do with the charge the Facilitator may charge me for their service. The facilitator didn't make any money on that aspect of the situation. They simply paid the artist on my behalf.

 

That's one of the things Paypal personal is for, specifically, as defined.

 

Another example: I pay a plumber to fix the toilet on family property, as the caretaker. My family member pays me back via Paypal personal. Again, I'm not selling the toilet, nor the service. I'm only "facilitating" the actual transaction between my family member and the plumber.

 

No popcorn necessary.

[comix4fun]

LINK

 

Can I use Venmo to pay someone for goods or services?

No. Venmo is designed for payments between friends and people who know and trust one another.

 

Just take a look at that mess. "No," period. Then, the second sentence follows....it's as if "they" cannot comprehend the situation where I might buy a physical object from a non-business/non-merchant personal friend OR individual that I know and trust. Literally taken, that two-sentence combination there precludes that possibility. My conclusion is that they must be defining "goods or services" to mean objects or services purchased from businesses/merchants. Right?

 

If so, that might bear some relevance to yesterday's discussion, given that PayPal owns the company that joined those two sentences together.

 

 

I agree completely. IMO this is the relevant distinction, and while not perfect, it is broadly conform to the reality of private versus public transactions. It does not solve all the issues though.

 

If you act and transact like a business, meaning systematically and with regularity, you are a merchant, if you act and transact only occasionally, fitfully, circumstantially, like a private individual would, you are not a merchant. Each transaction on its own proves nothing, and thus Paypal/Venmo is only being truthful in having an ambiguous definition, as a pattern of behaviour is the only measure possible.

 

I agree that it is possible to argue that "personal" paypal can comprehend purchases of good and services from private individuals but that would only be on the assumption that there was no pattern of behaviour suggesting that it is in fact evidence of an ongoing business.

 

RMAs argument has been consistent that the issue is not a single transaction, but a pattern of behaviour. So if you are essentially running a business you cannot say "hey, but each individual transaction was to somebody I know personally as a friend" because if it is regular and constant you are acting like a merchant, whether they are really your friends or not.

 

So if you are buying and selling regularly here on the Boards you are acting like a merchant and all transactions are public and not "personal" paypal. If your purchases or sales are genuinely fitful, occasional, circumstantial (charity, hard times, sudden car repairs etc) than I believe Paypal has allowed for this reality in their policy. They will, up to a point, give you the benefit of the doubt, unless or until a pattern of behaviour shows otherwise.

 

I'm sorry this discussion became so dramatic as there are interesting parallels between how governments handle these issues in private tax declarations/audits and how Paypal approaches regular versus personal payments.

 

If occasionally Joe sells his best friend John a stack of used trades because they are fanboy readers, it is highly unlikely the government will care enough to pursue Joe for the 5% GST normally collected on all retail sales. If however over time Joe's finances show larger and larger purchases of inventory that are then resold for larger and larger incomes, they will sooner or later pursue him if it is undeclared. Above a certain amount, I think its 35k?, he would also have to pay the government the GST he would be expected to have collected.

 

Its all thresholds of patterns of behaviour, and another reason it is hard to make damning judgments of singular acts, at least in this context.

 

 

 

 

 

Good catch, Ed. I was perusing Venmo's site and terms yesterday, but I didn't see that one.

 

Yes, Crassus, this is a good summation of the issue. Though, personally, I would suggest that one ought to pay for a service ANY time one uses it, Paypal has allowed for the occasional and infrequent transaction between friends to be a "pass."

 

It's like yard sales. Several municipalties have rules regarding the frequency of these sales, and most of the time, governmental tax agencies don't bother with the occasional sale.

 

But....if you're having a yard sale every other weekend, then you're going to be having a problem. Same here.

 

The problem then comes down to "what is the line between frequent and infrequent"? As I said, that line is ethically solved by treating every purchase as a purchase, but aside from that, it is really up to Paypal to determine what is acceptable and what is not...not the individuals using Paypal. Paypal graciously allows exceptions to their rules, but they are exceptions to their rules, not "workarounds" for people who don't want to pay just because they don't have to.

 

In other words: If Paypal gives someone the right to use a Personal payment for a purchase, whether it's one time, or every time, that is not stealing, because it's Paypal's right to give or deny that ability to users of their service.

 

If someone takes that "right", on their own, without asking Paypal's permission...that is stealing, even if it is a single act, and even if Paypal forgives them after the fact. It's not their right to decide on their own what Paypal will and should allow. It's all about motive and intent.

 

And we're back to the coke from the store owner again.

 

And...frankly...if a buyer was actually friends with, and cared about, his or her selling friend, they wouldn't put his/her Paypal account at risk of losing the ability to do Personal transactions by sending them Personal payments for purchases at all. As mentioned before, there are people here who have lost that ability, and it makes it very hard to pay them back for Artist fees, or grading fees, or any of the other "pass through" fees that Personal was intended for. They complain about the fee, but if they hadn't been chowderheads to begin with, they wouldn't have lost the ability.

 

Very, very good discussion, gentlemen. If everyone kept a level head, a lot of serious issues like this could be hammered out, without the need for any drama. A boy can dream, right...?

 

Please explain why these "pass through" outlays which are out-of-pocket business expenses associated with someone (your friend) doing business and getting paid for doing it......is considered by you to be the same as paying back someone for lunch and not subject to fees?

 

 

Artist charges $10 per sig. I get 20 books signed. Artist charges $200. Facilitator pays that $200.

 

That $200 is paid back by me to the Facilitator via Paypal personal, and has nothing to do with the charge the Facilitator may charge me for their service. The facilitator didn't make any money on that aspect of the situation. They simply paid the artist on my behalf.

 

That's one of the things Paypal personal is for, specifically, as defined.

 

Another example: I pay a plumber to fix the toilet on family property, as the caretaker. My family member pays me back via Paypal personal. Again, I'm not selling the toilet, nor the service. I'm only "facilitating" the actual transaction between my family member and the plumber.

 

No popcorn necessary.

 

 

 

Seems there's a business opportunity in there somewhere....being a professional middleman.

 

I could run around paying for stuff on behalf of people...and when they reimburse me they can pay by paypal personal and maybe add in extra for my time and travel expenses. Complete Fee AVOIDANCE!!!

 

Oh ....would that mean I was providing a service? Cripes!!! I think my new get rich slow scheme has hit a pothole!