> The digital services tax (Digital Service Tax) is applied at a rate of 3% on revenues deriving from the provision of services on a digital interface for targeted advertising to users of that interface, for the provision of a multilateral digital interface that allows users to connect and interact with each other, also for the purpose of facilitating the direct supply of goods or services for the transmission of data collected from users and generated by the use of a digital interface.
> In practice, taxation applies to digital advertising on websites and social networks, access to digital platforms, fees received by the operators of such platforms, and also the transmission of data “collected” from users. Revenue is taxable if the user of the digital service is located within the territory of the State. For online advertising services, the user is considered to be located in the territory of the State if the advertisement appears on their device when it is used in the territory of the State. The location of the device in Italian territory is determined on the basis of its IP address.
> Businesses that generate revenue in Italy from the above-mentioned digital services and that, during the calendar year preceding the one in which the tax liability arises, generate a total revenue of not less than €750 million anywhere in the world, either individually or as a group, are subject to the digital tax.
It seems for me a fair tax for corporations that take advantages of data collected to provide a service that someone pays (advertisements).
No comments yet
nradov · 16h ago
So another extortionate shakedown of American tech companies by a European government. If only they put as much energy into encouraging growth and innovation.
melesian · 14h ago
If American companies don't want to pay taxes in Europe they can easily avoid doing so by staying home. If they prefer to earn profits in Europe they can comply with the law. As it is they do everything they can to avoid paying taxes, full stop, not just in Europe.
pennaMan · 12h ago
> they do everything they can to avoid paying taxes
as any rational entity should
saubeidl · 12h ago
A rational entity would want a functioning society, with working infrastructure and social systems, not a crumbling country on the verge of revolution. Guess what pays for that? Taxes.
Stop trying to rebrand selfishness as rationalism.
nradov · 9h ago
Do you voluntarily pay more than the minimum taxes required or are you selfish? And don't try to deflect the question by making spurious claims that wealthy individuals or corporations should be held to a higher standard. Give us a clear yes or no answer.
saubeidl · 9h ago
I voluntarily pay the taxes I am required to pay without resorting to any sketchy schemes to undermine the intent of tax law.
I also vote for parties that run on raising taxes on wealthy individuals like myself. It is a membership fee for living in a functioning society.
nradov · 8h ago
There's nothing "sketchy" about not wanting to pay extra taxes on free user accounts, so your response is disingenuous.
saubeidl · 8h ago
Sketchy is in the eye of the beholder.
In more corporate terms, my user sentiment has dropped given the way US companies have been trying to avoid paying their fair share.
nradov · 7h ago
How much exactly would be "fair"? Give us a specific number and show your work.
saubeidl · 5h ago
Look, I'm no economist, I don't know the exact numbers.
I can tell you however, that Bezos and his oligarch friends booking out a Venice that is sinking from climate change, while people suffer without health insurance and we still don't have high speed rail as built out as it needs to be is definitely not my understanding of fair.
And again, I say this as somebody that I also think should be taxed more. To live this well while so many people and projects need the resources more is unconscionable.
Leave the implementation details to the experts and elected officials. It's clear which direction we need to move in though.
DrScientist · 14h ago
Just applying existing tax rules to new situations - it's the American companies that want exceptional treatment, not them being exceptionally targeted.
It's quite clear there is a transaction - with value - and a large part of these companies valuations and revenue is directly driven by the number of users.
robertlagrant · 10h ago
The transaction is between the digital service provider and the advertisement buyer.
2000UltraDeluxe · 10h ago
Not after Meta tried to circumvent GDPR by attemtpting to sell access to their services and let users pay with money OR personal data. If it's only the payment medium that changes, then charging VAT is logical.
robertlagrant · 10h ago
If people pay with money then yes, that will be subject to tax somewhere.
2000UltraDeluxe · 10h ago
That depends on jurisdiction, I guess. Here, paying with goods or services doesn't excempt the other party from paying VAT. I fail to see how that can't be applied when paying with intellectual property.
robertlagrant · 9h ago
Anything can be applied - why isn't giving a street performer money subject to VAT? So yes, it could be applied.
DrScientist · 8h ago
I suspect if buskers earn enough they very well might be eligable for VAT.
( I am not a tax lawyer ).
robertlagrant · 7h ago
That would only be if the income is VAT-taxable, or at least in the UK anyway. I am also not a lawyer but they appear to be defining the fairly nebulous "data value" as being VAT-taxable now. There's no rhyme or reason other than "country got power; country want more money",
altairprime · 15h ago
If a company takes VC investment to invest in free signups, the VCs are clearly expecting these signups to be a revenue-generating. That they aren’t treated as revenue for taxation purposes is quite the loophole when one’s core business model hinges on free signups. If U.S. companies adhered to VAT principles then instead of taxing signups, they could just tax the value added by Facebook and assign it by citizenship of the users.
How much sales tax are Facebook customers paying on their metadata purchases today? What component of that sale price or sales tax are being distributed back to the users or jurisdictions whose data was harvested? Is that a just economic outcome for everyone that isn’t Facebook?
I don’t know what the right answer is here, but I absolutely recognize the plausibility of the sort of claim being leveled here — even if tech would rather not. It’s basically just a proposed tariff on user exports from Italy, after all!
(Personally, I am looking forward to someone someday making a courtroom argument that providing free access to Facebook services without declaring a value, and without offering payment for use of one’s metadata as an alternative to unwanted services, is equivalent to valuing access those services at $0 and so back pay is owed their users-as-contractors. No one’s had the courage yet, but it’s nice to see we’re moving in the direction that might produce such outcomes.)
rgavuliak · 15h ago
Oh the ones that do everything to avoid paying taxes in Europe?
high_na_euv · 15h ago
Arent they encouraging growth by eliminating unfair competition?
pennaMan · 12h ago
when you shoot yourself in the foot before the race all competition is "unfair"
high_na_euv · 11h ago
You suggest eu companies also should avoid taxes?
2000UltraDeluxe · 10h ago
Exchanges of goods and services are taxable here. I fail to see why it should be applied to everything else, but not personal data. It's just intellectual property exchanging hands, no?
verzali · 14h ago
Only fair game while the US government tries to extort everyone else.
saubeidl · 12h ago
If American tech companies don't want to play by the rules of our market, they are welcome to leave it.
Cherry-picking the upside while avoiding the downside is parasitic behavior.
simmerup · 15h ago
After so much Amrrica First stuff I think Europes due its own selfish streak
sQL_inject · 13h ago
These EU taxes and fines are the panicked clutching amidst the slow, dying gasps of a continent that's only a museum of its former self.
suddenlybananas · 16h ago
Boo hoo won't someone think of the poor American tech companies.
> The digital services tax (Digital Service Tax) is applied at a rate of 3% on revenues deriving from the provision of services on a digital interface for targeted advertising to users of that interface, for the provision of a multilateral digital interface that allows users to connect and interact with each other, also for the purpose of facilitating the direct supply of goods or services for the transmission of data collected from users and generated by the use of a digital interface.
> In practice, taxation applies to digital advertising on websites and social networks, access to digital platforms, fees received by the operators of such platforms, and also the transmission of data “collected” from users. Revenue is taxable if the user of the digital service is located within the territory of the State. For online advertising services, the user is considered to be located in the territory of the State if the advertisement appears on their device when it is used in the territory of the State. The location of the device in Italian territory is determined on the basis of its IP address.
> Businesses that generate revenue in Italy from the above-mentioned digital services and that, during the calendar year preceding the one in which the tax liability arises, generate a total revenue of not less than €750 million anywhere in the world, either individually or as a group, are subject to the digital tax.
It seems for me a fair tax for corporations that take advantages of data collected to provide a service that someone pays (advertisements).
No comments yet
as any rational entity should
Stop trying to rebrand selfishness as rationalism.
I also vote for parties that run on raising taxes on wealthy individuals like myself. It is a membership fee for living in a functioning society.
In more corporate terms, my user sentiment has dropped given the way US companies have been trying to avoid paying their fair share.
I can tell you however, that Bezos and his oligarch friends booking out a Venice that is sinking from climate change, while people suffer without health insurance and we still don't have high speed rail as built out as it needs to be is definitely not my understanding of fair.
And again, I say this as somebody that I also think should be taxed more. To live this well while so many people and projects need the resources more is unconscionable.
Leave the implementation details to the experts and elected officials. It's clear which direction we need to move in though.
It's quite clear there is a transaction - with value - and a large part of these companies valuations and revenue is directly driven by the number of users.
( I am not a tax lawyer ).
How much sales tax are Facebook customers paying on their metadata purchases today? What component of that sale price or sales tax are being distributed back to the users or jurisdictions whose data was harvested? Is that a just economic outcome for everyone that isn’t Facebook?
I don’t know what the right answer is here, but I absolutely recognize the plausibility of the sort of claim being leveled here — even if tech would rather not. It’s basically just a proposed tariff on user exports from Italy, after all!
(Personally, I am looking forward to someone someday making a courtroom argument that providing free access to Facebook services without declaring a value, and without offering payment for use of one’s metadata as an alternative to unwanted services, is equivalent to valuing access those services at $0 and so back pay is owed their users-as-contractors. No one’s had the courage yet, but it’s nice to see we’re moving in the direction that might produce such outcomes.)
Cherry-picking the upside while avoiding the downside is parasitic behavior.