[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: smartcards in .ch?


The swiss parliament decided against raising the limit from CHF 5 to CHF 10:

It was rejected because it would discriminate Swiss retailers against foreign retailers because the Swiss retailers would still need to pay VAT on their products.


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.com.au> wrote:
On 21/06/13 11:05, Philipp Hug wrote:

Uh .. but .. you usually don't pay that presentation cost if the the
total value is below the limit, do you? Sounds like this all depends on
the blood pressure of the agent in charge...

No, it's a fixed rule. If the tax/VAT to be collected is less than CHF 5, it is waived.
This results in a limit of CHF 62.50 (with 8% VAT) for goods+shipment costs.
If your shipment costs more than this 62.50 you have to pay VAT for the whole amount.

Or what transporter was that? I remember reading complaints about UPS
always charging such a fee, even if it didn't have to present anything
to the customs (for German customers, though).

The presentation cost is added by the shipping company.
e.g. Swiss Post charges:
CHF 12 or CHF 16.50 basic price (depending on sender country)
+  3% of value of the goods:

I'm awaiting something from Hong Kong in a few days [1]. Totaling to
somewhere just below the limit. I'll report back how that turned out.

If the total amount you paid (product+shipping) is below CHF 62.50, you're fine.

In Australia there is a $1,000 threshold - some greedy retailers are lobbying to reduce the threshold because they are used to overpricing everything in Australia and they hate competition.  Australia Post did a review and revealed that a lower threshold would require more staff and warehouse facilities and the extra taxes would be completely offset by lost productivity, delays and the real costs of administration.

Maybe the Swiss could make a petition/referendum to bring in a CHF 1,000 threshold and eliminate all the complications here?


community mailing list

Reply to: