Talk:VAT-free imports from the Channel Islands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ARTICLE FULLY UPDATED AUG 2010[edit]

I have taken out irrelevant information (i.e. import duties into Jersey - this should be dealt with in a different article as this article is about VAT free imports from the Channel Islands [Exports] not imports into The Channel Islands) and I have put in current verifiable and relevant information. If any justification or evidence is required please advise and I will supply it. Bigbrothersback (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man vyi thanks for your changes to layout. Very good. I will add the missing bits of information shortly. Bigbrothersback (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the bit about the GST low value relief back in, because without an explanation that the trade is exempt from both VAT and GST it's a bit difficult for the uninitiated to get a grip on how the thing works. The article might be better (and NPOV) titled something like "Sales tax-free trade between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands" because Jersey traders certainly make parallel complaints about the way UK exporters can benefit from the GST relief to compete against Jersey companies (internet orders on books are an interesting, because books are an example of goods that are taxed in Jersey, but zero-rated in the UK). But for the pertinence of the article, the GST relief is an important angle. Man vyi (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK . This is generally known as that VAT Loophole but that's not an accurate description. My only concern is fringe information added to this making it too complex to understand. I think its fair to say that sales volume of consumer trade from CI to UK dwarfs UK to CI and I can't imagine companies abusing a relief coming into in CI on the same scale as sales wouldn't be big enough.Don't you think ?Bigbrothersback (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

having thought about it I don't think that changing title of this piece would be helpful. Whilst I don't think we should be judgemental the fact remains that Jersey and Guernsey Governments have fought hard to keep this trade going including the elements that could be abusive. Playing that down in the title and putting this trade on equal footing with goods coming the other way would be biased in my view. Bigbrothersback (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV (NOW RESOLVED)[edit]

Justifications for page move and copyedit:

  1. Title POV and inaccurate - loophole implies an unnecessary value judgment, and if there is a loophole, it is a loophole in UK VAT legislation and not a CI loophole at all.
  2. Article biased by seeming to assume that the UK VAT situation was "normal" and the CI situation an "exception".
  3. Article appeared to imply that UK company complaints were justified

Hopefully the rewrite presents a more balanced view. Man vyi 16:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsensical. Point 1: Loophole does not imply any sort of value judgement (it simply indicates a point where the wording of the law does not cover all circumstances), and the argument about where the loophole is is mere sophistry. Point 2: The VAT regime covers 27 nations, with an area of well over a million square miles and 500 million citizens. The Channel Islands have a combined area of about 70 square miles and a population of 155,000. Quite how anyone could construe the CI situation as the norm is entirely unclear.87.244.104.187 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV removed as this article now contains facts that can all be verified. I agree with above comment. This is not a loophole which would mean there was an unforseen effect of the drafting of LVCR legislation. LVCR is legitimate and the legislation is very clear particularly relating to mail order. The bulk of the trade is an abuse of LVCR (see article) The other points here are nonsensical statements. The article now indicates concrete reasons why UK companies are complaining. If anyone wishes to question anything on the page please raise it in talk and I will address it. Bigbrothersback (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of list of companies(Now Resolved - referenced in body of text where appropriate[edit]

I just removed all of the companies. The thing that drew my attention was the lead phrase, which talked about how this was an incomplete list of companies "profiting" from the VAT exemption. But we can't add those companies without reliable sources connecting them to the VAT-free issue. To just say "Country X does business in the Channel Islands" automatically means that they are "profiting" from the exemption is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Only those companies which have been discussed in reliable sources belong here. Furthermore, I don't even think there should be a list, anyway--lists like this invite spamming, as was the case with a number of the stores on the list. If any companies have been mentioned in reliable sources, include that info in prose in the text. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Main retailers of interest now referenced in the text Bigbrothersback (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of Controversy Section[edit]

I was reading through the Controversy section, and noticed some very clear WP:OR--specifically, WP:SYNTH. As far as I can tell, the Halifax judgment is not related to the Channel Islands. If it is, someone please point me to sources with more information on the case, and I'll gladly add them and revise my edits. But if I am correct, and the Halifax case is separate, then it is very much original research to draw the conclusion that the Halifax case necessarily applies to what is happening in the Channel Islands. It may be true, but it's Original Research until a reliable source asserts that it is applicable. I almost stripped out the Halifax judgment in general, because just putting it into this article could be described as synthesis, but I realized that we could keep it, by using it as the base definition of VAT abuse, and then later showing that others have asserted that what is happening with the CI companies is VAT abuse.

Second, you'll see that I added a lot of "citation needed" tags. Most of this section is uncited. I don't know who added it originally, and where he/she got the info from, but this section desperately needs sources. If sources can't be found in short order (maybe a week or so), I'm going to remove the information, because we must verify all information in our articles with reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax is an important judgment concerning the application of VAT rules to a case where arrangements have been put in place to "abuse" those rules. I have some expertise in this area, and the suggestion that Halifax has application to LVCR strikes me as quite wrong. Indeed it is such an odd point to make that I doubt one would find any reliable sources commenting either way on the question. Should be deleted as original research. I agree that the other (considerable) uncited material should be deleted. LeContexte (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we are entering the realm of legal argument and as yet Halifax has not been applied to the CI LVCR issue. I have very reliable sources but I'm not going to quote them here. I can tell you that it has already been applied to very similar arrangements to LVCR. Halifax relates to LVCR in the case of companies in the Channel Islands that have set up on the Islands with the sole purpose of avoiding VAT . I would agree that Halifax does not apply to every company on the CI but if you are exporting goods to the Islands from the UK with the intention of reimporting them by mail to UK customers that is clearly an abuse as it fulfils no other commercial purpose than to take advantage of a tax relief. Under Halifax that is abusive. Its not difficult to spot the companies that are on the Islands transshipping products to a UK customer base. What other reason would they be there ? One company has even publicly stated its there to take advantage of LVCR whilst the Jersey Authorities also admit that the 'fulfilment' industry is on the Islands due to LVCR. I do however agree its pointless discussing it here and until action is taken there is no actual source. However if action is taken you can delete most of the article. So lets wait and see...Bigbrothersback (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify- Halifax could potentially apply if a retailer keeps stock in the UK and then roundtrips it through the Channel Islands (although the fact Government is aware of and has chosen not to close the "loophole" in question would make this approach somewhat challenging for HMRC). There would however be no grounds for applying Halifax to LVCR per se, i.e. where goods arrive in the Channel Islands directly and are then imported into the UK. So perhaps we are in fact agreeing. LeContexte (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have added in the correct relevance of Halifax with references to sources Bigbrothersback (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References Style[edit]

I was trying to make it so that we don't have a separate notes and references section, but I realized that to do that we have to pick only one way of doing it--either inline citations or List-defined references. For those unfamiliar with the two methods, the first puts the citation details in the body of the text, as with the items currently listed in "Notes". LDR only leaves <ref name = "name"/> in the text, and puts the references (links, info) in the reference list itself. There are pros and cons to each, but WP:CITE does say that we need to be consistent. If we can't agree, we have to use the inline citations, as that is how the article originally started. Based on some arguments on other pages (see Talk:Halle Berry, if you're interested), I've recently become convinced that LDR will make editing easier, overall, but others disagree. Is there a consensus here to do it one way or the other? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer LDR. I will go through this article and bring it all in line shortly. Bigbrothersback (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some revisions and changes to entire article. I am not a full time Wikipedia editor so please advise if anything can be done better. Some of the requested citations are impossible. I was involved in the Fopp/Musc Zone Judicial Review attempt which never made it to the internet but it did take place. Thanks! Bigbrothersback (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference all of the information recently added[edit]

Bigbrothersback has recently added a lot of information to this article, and much of it is unreferenced. Some of it may be OR. A lot of it is not in an appropriate style--we should never have phrases like "It should be noted that," or "It is a fact that," etc. I stated editing a little bit, but would love it if you could go back in to the article and clean up both the style and the information itself. I can tell from the conversation above that you know a lot about this subject; however, we have to report only what reliable sources have already said on the issue, not what we ourselves can "figure out." Qwyrxian (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to do what's required. I am not a full time Wikipedia editor so would appreciate some help. The problem is that the internet does not contain all of the information available . the internet is not all powerful. For instance the 1997 VAT Assurance Review is a pre-internet document (The UK Government have not put it online) but I have a copy. I do not understand why you have asked for confirmation of the Flower Industry reference when I provided a link to a letter from George Osborne. Isn't a letter from the Chancellor Of The Exchequer good enough! Slightly puzzled by that. The VAT Assurance review says that the relief was allowed to expedite horticultural goods through the mail and its also documented in Tolley's VAT guides of the period but again they are not online. Suggestions ? Why was DMS link removed ? If there is a rule I am unaware of please advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbrothersback (talk • contribs) 10:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The problem with that link is that it was a link to a blog, which falls under Wikipedia's rules for self-published sources. As such, we can't use it as a reliable source to prove the letter or what it says. You'll need something more reliable to verify that information.
Luckily, though, I see part of the other problem. References do not have to be online--you can site paper documents like the 1997 VAT Assurance Review, assuming it's a reliable source. From what I understand, that's an official government document, right? In that case you can site it directly. However, as you do so, take a look back at the text, because that type of document counts as a primary source. We can use primary sources, but, to quote the policy, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." So be sure that any information in the article that relies on that source is strictly a statement of what the source says, without any interpretation at all. If you're not sure how to write the citation, let me know, and we can figure it out. At a minimum, put the title, the government agency that made it, and a date. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hows it looking now ? Bigbrothersback (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands...[edit]

User:Bigbrothersback invited me to take a look at the page again, as xe felt that a new user was removing facts that did not support a certain agenda. I'll be honest--while this article remained on my watch list all summer, I fairly intentionally ignored it. To me, the article seemed to be quite questionable, as it seemed fairly opinionated. But, at the time, I didn't care all that much, and had other interests in Wikipedia drawing my attention more strongly. I'm going to take a look now; no promises, and I don't mean to say that I have any special insight. It might actually help that I know literally nothing about the situation other than what's written here, as I promise I have literally no agenda other than making sure the page follows policies and guidelines. I'm going to invite the other author to come discuss the changes xe made here, as even if the changes were correct, it's hard to understand why since xe didn't use edit summaries. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes I made[edit]

Okay, I'm going to start by making some changes to the first Background paragraph. First, I note that the article says that price is the major factor. The source quoted, however, does not say that. In fact, it's pretty much impossible for a source to prove that, unless they were to conduct a wide UK survey of people purchasing online goods, and ask them why they were shopping online as opposed to in stores. Furthermore, the article quoted is only about CD and other music sales. Thus, we can draw no conclusions about internet businesses in general. I have revised that paragraph to be more inline with the source and not make extraordinary claims that are unsupported.

Second, that stuff about Robin-hooding has absolutely nothing to do with VAT or the Channel Islands (the article mentions neither), and so it cannot be included here--including it is a form of original research called synthesis. Stating that it is cheaper by an amount approximately equal to the VAT is pure original research, and the claim cannot be made unless a reliable source already made it. The final part about consumer perception is entirely unsourced, and appears to be original research, so I removed it also.

Finally, to help make the context more clear, I added some more info from the Bowers article--factual data actually related to the topic.

I'm not going to make any more changes to the article right now. I've found, from dealing with controversial subjects before, that it's usually best to take things very slowly, one step at a time. I'd like to hear other people's feedback on those changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fine with me. Many music industry figures are deliberately kept secret but the fact everyone is offshore proves the way the market is going. Nobody would bother if downloads were an issue. - Bigbrothersback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbrothersback (talk • contribs) 01:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user is bogus - Created purely to hack this entry Richardallen92 Bigbrothersback (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is far, far, far, far too long. It really needs to be edited down to about the size of the Background section. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigbrothersback: please assume good faith. Just because the user disagrees with you, doesn't mean they're "hacking" the entry. I also think that much of what's in the article is not neutral, and needs to be trimmed. While you are correct that so far the user is what we call an single purpose account, that isn't inherently a problem, so long as the edits are being done according to our policies. I did send the user a message asking them to more clearly explain why they removed what they did, so that we can have a cogent discussion.
@Falcon9x5: There's no "ideal" length for any given article. As I said above, I do think this article is too long, but that's because I'm concerned with specific content (which I'll raise at a later date...I'm still holding off giving my bigger edit this morning). However, it would be helpful if you pointed out specifically what parts of the article are not appropriate per our policies/guidelines--then we can start working together to bring it under control. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there is stuff that's specifically not appropriate, but the entire article is far too long winded and hard to navigate. It needs to be clipped down from a readability perspective, not necessarily a policy perspective. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck...it contains a huge amount of research so would appreciate that its not cut to shreds. Not everything can be verified on the web particularly pre-internet material but all information here is correct. This issue is contentious and currently subject to pending EU legal action which will clarify much of what is written here. Depending on which way it goes large chunks will become redundant. The issue is currently legally unclear until the EU make it clear. That's why the article is so long. Its unavoidable. I can tell you its regarded as a good article by those looking at this issue. Bigbrothersback (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other important point. There are people making huge amounts of money from the use of this relief who would be extremely unhappy to see the issues exposed herein. Please bear that in mind when anyone makes a change. Is the removal of information being done to cover the issue up or is it being done to add balance to the article. I'm more than happy to see this article balanced informative accurate and fair. If you are making a fortune from the abuse of a tax relief then you certainly do not want the abuse highlighted. I trust your good and impartial judgement regarding this entry.Bigbrothersback (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't imply that changes or the removal of information is done because of "them" or "The Man". Also, to say it's considered a good article "by those looking at this issue" doesn't really mean anything - nor does the fact that it contains a large amount of research. Just because an article is factually correct or "legally unclear" does not mean it's immune to being cut down. I'm not familiar enough with the article to feel confident editing it down, but I might have a look over the next few days. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bbib, the attitude you portray above is exactly what I was worried of. It sounds like you're trying to ensure that the article "tells the Truth" and "fights the power". If you're going to be able to participate in the process, you're going to have to accept that the article is going to evolve, to change, and that, inevitably, it won't be exactly what you like. Our job is not to expose anything. Our job is simply to report on what can be verified by reliable sources, giving appropriate weight to various viewpoints, etc. I also haven't had time to do more editing, but also should in the next few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect I didn't come on here to be psycho analysed and in any case your speculative point of view is not correct! Please just note what I said. This issue is yet to be clarified in law so for that reason it will be one of two possible outcomes. The piece at present tries to present a snap shot of the facts as they stand now from both perspectives, but its a fluid situation as is any issue relating to the use of any EU tax relief. Your input is appreciated. Bigbrothersback (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/24/business-off-shore-tax NB This is still ongoing..... Bigbrothersback (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Changes to "Channel Islands" section[edit]

I've finally come to take another look, and am making some more changes to this section.

The second paragraph was completely removed. The two sources do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. The "Direct Consult" is a private firm, and you were using it to source a definition. Further, the claim that the term "fulfillment" is used different from the usual way is pure original research. The second source (which I relocated to the other place it is used) is a report to Parliament, but it is entirely the opinion of the Scrutiny Panel. At best, it qualifies only as a primary source, and as such we can only site it as providing its own opinion (we cannot site it as fact). I think that's how it's used later on, but I haven't looked at that section in too much detail.

The third paragraph was cut in half. The claim that the reason the VAT business from the bailiwicks is more valuable than that from Hong Kong has to do with shipping time certainly seems reasonable, but is still pure original research. There are potentially many other reasons why people choose the bailiwicks, and so, without a reliable source indicating that is the reason they are chosen, the information must be removed. The last part about the 3/4 loss is a duplicate of the information earlier in the paragraph, so no need for it to be there twice.

I pulled the whole 4th paragraph. Nothing that it stated was in the citation given. That citation never mentions LVCR. All that article talks about is job losses due to increased competition in the fulfillment industry. It doesn't say anything about other post business coming in specifically to take advantage of VAT, etc. So not only was the citation misused, it doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this article. Or, rather, the connection is tenuous, and requires a lot of inference (i.e. original research) to make the connection.

I'll stay with just this section for today, so that there's time to comment. But if the rest of the article uses sources and makes claims like those being made here, I expect to continue to be removing significant chunks from the rest. You (Bigbrothersback) said above that this article contains "a huge amount of research." I'm beginning to believe that by this you mean what we call original research, which is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. The only thing we may do is say what other, reliable, independent sources have said on the subject. In the case of opinions or speculations, we must be clear that they are opinions, attribute them, and not state them as facts. Furthermore, we should generally rely mostly on secondary sources, not primary documents. This is not to say that the research you did is bad or incorrect, only that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original research. After waiting a bit and/or hearing feedback, I'll move on to the next section. 06:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm tempted to let you do the whole thing and see how it looks. Half the problem has been people with a 'view on this subject' editing it to their own agenda (some of it unrelated...such as some of the bits you removed) If you are impartial then it would be interesting to see what you do with it. I'd only object to anything fundamental being removed. FYI Many of the issues covered here have appeared on here wwww.vatloophole.co.uk which is also getting referenced in major press and on other websites so is becoming a source of information. Bigbrothersback (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to review your changes in the light of this http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/09/online-shopping-vat-channel-islands

Which verifies some of the assertions in the article. 91.125.96.191 (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Relief on Imports Section[edit]

I'm back with more time for the hard editing work needing to be done on this article.

Changes made:

  • Changing title to simply "LVCR". The prepayment part doesn't seem to play any role in the rest of the article, and the section title was unecessarily long and complicated.
  • Removed info about other taxes (irrelevant to this article).
  • Made end of 1st paragraph neutral (we should not specifically call out that its the maximum amount, and that's clear from the numbers anyway). Also shouldn't unduly emphasize that this is optional (it's still there, just not mentioned more than once.
  • Removed description of goods (CDs, etc.) that meet this: that's OR, and pushing POV. Any item under the maximum qualifies. Later, in the controversy part, we'll of course clarify the goods that are currently causing the most concern.
  • Temporarily removed the following:
"HMV cited in their 2006 Year End report that relocating to Guernsey was to take advantage of VAT-free mail order as a key method of improving competitiveness [1]
The pricing advantage afforded by LVCR for companies based in the Islands selling into EU countries means that the Channel Islands-based retailer can undercut competing retailers based in the EU and this advantage is acknowledged by an OXERA report commissioned by the States of Jersey in 2005 as well as the 1997 VAT Assurance Review of The Channel Islands commissioned by the UK Government.[2]"

I'm not planning on taking this out permanently, but think this should probably be moved to another section. But only maybe...see, ideally, we want to get rid of the separate "controversy" section. In general, such sections are considered to be poor, POV style writing. We ideally want to present all of the facts neutrally, without labelling them as such. Now, if reliable sources have used that word, we can ourselves also use it, but I'll look into that that. In any event, this part doesn't belong here, as it doesn't fit with the rest of this section.

  • Converted some of the statements about where the info came from into references. It's fine that they're not available online, but we should still treat them as references to support the info. I assume good faith that you (Bigbrotherisback) have read the documents and accurately represented what they say.
  • Simplified the final paragraph--we don't need to list all of the details. We certainly cannot state "they don't offer an alternative explanation," as that's POV pushing OR. One possibility is that paragraph will be moved; I can imagine an organization that is "historical": First it lists where and why LVCR was allowed originally, second it discusses where it moved to (the CD/DVD markets), and third we discuss the responses to that shift (and the undercutting problems).
  • Removed "The operation of Tax Relief as applied to goods entering Jersey from the UK" section, as it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the VAT issue at all.

I'll wait a few days for feedback/adjustments, then proceed onward. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh...my computer restarted for updates and I hadn't saved the changes...well, luckily I explained them here so I'll go do them again now. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello .Qwyrxian..sorry I haven't had chance to get back to this. The speed at this issue is now moving in the UK media is making updating this complex as facts are emerging all the time so there is more press coverage that backs up various aspects of this article. Lord Lucas is just about to ask questions in the House of Lords that will result in more data. I'll get back to this when I can. Thanks for the clean up.Probably best to wait until dust settles Bigbrothersback (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have more sources, feel free to post them here on the talk page and we discuss about how to integrate them. I mean, you can add them directly, but be careful, as a lot of what you added before was problematic and not matching to several different policies, so it may help to get some advice here first. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ HMV 2006 Report
  2. ^ Jersey Economic Affairs Scruitiny Panel - Impact of The Fulfilment Industry On the Local Economy

Controversy section[edit]

I pulled out a lot of information from that section. Some of it was irrelevant (the stuff about region free DVDs), and a little bit was redundant (one paragraph was exactly duplicated), but the main problem was lack of sources, original research, and lack of neutrality. We may never draw our own conclusions about numerical data (literally, the only conclusions we can draw are things like A is bigger than B, and only if that fact is patently obvious). We cannot present the controversy in Wikipedia's voice--that is, we cannot say explicitly that "The use of LVCR is controversial because it may be abusive." All we can say is "These people have claimed that it was abusive (ref)."

I think the edit summaries I left explain each of the removals or changes; let me know if it wasn't clear why I removed something.

The section still needs to be improved, because it's a bit unstructured. My guess is that by reorganizing the info (maybe even subsections) we could make it easier to understand. But at least now the section isn't in violation (or, is at least in less violation) of our fundamental policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More removals[edit]

I removed a chunk from the Guernsey section. This:

The legality (within EU law) and the effectiveness of these voluntary and unenforceable arrangements remains to be seen. It would be hard to argue that they will have any effect on the level of abuse of LVCR particularly since it is accepted that virtually all UK CD and DVD mail order is based offshore already (therefore limiting it is a case of shutting the door after the horse has bolted) and the code does not deal with other growth areas of LVCR abuse such as the computer memory card industry.

is pure OR, speculative about the future, and not neutral.

This:

Critics have described the code as misleading[1] and pointed out the complete lack of transparency particularly with regards to the voluntary 'capping'.

is not stated in the article--in fact the article's point is that the arrangements are not misleading--this is a misrepresentation of the source.

This:

Companies that have moved to Guernsey have experienced rapid growth, as demonstrated by the highly successful transfer of HMV's online operation from the UK to Guernsey in 2005, and the continued success of TheHutgroup.com who also run sites in Guernsey for Tesco, Asda, Dixons, Argos and others.

is unsourced, and borderline OR (in assuming that the move to Guernsey is the cause for the success, even assuming such success exists).

I took out other unsourced claims from other sections, too. I suppose I should continue combing through the whole article...I will if I get the inclination. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qwyrxian Sorry haven't been back to this. Much of what was speculation on here is now turning into fact as the EU make it clear that the Channel Islands use of LVCR is an abuse. Once that is in the public domain with references I'll go through and alter this article as it will all then be just a case of stating the public facts. That will also remove all of the controversy from this entry. The article will then be discussing LVCR and The Channel Islands in terms of a practice that has been abolished! Bigbrothersback (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure not to site the actual EU gov't docs; as a general rule, those count as WP:PRIMARY sources, and shouldn't usually be used for anything but the simplest of facts. Rather, we need secondary sources (news reports, academic analysis, etc.). If you're thinking of adding primary sources, I recommend posting it here first, so that we can be sure that they meet the limited exceptions allowed for primaries. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Code of Conduct

Tense fixing needed[edit]

While there are a couple of notes that this is no longer the case (one in the intro, one in the government response section). The bulk of the article is written as if VAT free imports of low value goods from the channel islands to the UK are the current situation. Someone needs to go through and fix this.

Also does anyone know the situation with imports from the channel islands to the rest of the EU? are they still covered? 94.6.24.111 (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to be more specific about any errors, or edit the article yourself. --Danrok (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on VAT-free imports from the Channel Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:VAT-free imports from the Channel Islands/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Class==

Start class because although broad coverage could use more references and more history.EECavazos 05:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Priority==

Mid priority because subject matter concerns UK and is somewhat controversial so that it would cause people to search for this article and read it.EECavazos 05:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 18:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:VAT-free_imports_from_the_Channel_Islands&oldid=1209468988"