Ebay, Send to me EXACTLY what you send to CRA

[eurotin]

My sales were of 2 types. First, antique collectables, mainly toys and trains, owned by my company and second, commission sales of items like automotive sales brochures and train collections. All revenue and expenses flowed through my company and income was reported fully. However, I'm sure I sold enough that CRA will come calling. So ebay, I need to get prepared for this. It would be a huge advantage to know just what CRA is looking at so I can start assembling documentation on enough of these sales to put their minds at ease. There was nothing in the ebay agreement that anticipated this situation and I'm assuming that ebay can provide this info to all affected powersellers in a vastly more efficient manner that the individual sellers could. If ebay is handing out my account information I have a right to know exactly what information this is. Its worth noting that when my company purchased collectables, I was audited and challenged by CRA. Looks like selling them is going to draw the same sort of time-consuming, distractive and expensive attention.

[pierrelebel]

"eBay will only be providing information for the time period that powerseller status was held. "

Correct.

However, that does not change the seller's responsibility and liability to include ALL his business income, not just the amount earned while a PowerSeller. .

[dagr8_renaud]

wow thi sis all VERY confusing , this will be my first year as a powerseller , I will use all my paypal receipts and ( bought and sold) since I buy 95 % of my stuff online and resell 95 % online aswell , just a simple math will do the trick right ? hope so because that is what I intend to do since I pay all my seller fees online ... do I need all my shipping receipts ? insert sarcastic 'LOL' here

[lina-mallows]

Pierre- your wrote "eBay will only be providing information for the time period that powerseller status was held. "

"ONLY" !!!!!

I CANNOT DISAGREE MORE!

Whatever people are being led to believe here- and the reality of what eBay has sent us in an EXCEL file- are not the same thing.
While the COURT'S ruling may be narrow, what eBay is handing them appears to encompass the ENTIRE YEARS, and not just the time status was maintained.

Having received the files from eBay, that they claim are being handed/have been handed to CRA- they date from Jan 1, 2004 to Dec 31, 2005.

Subject: Information provided to the Canada Revenue Agency (KMM5xxxxxx5V36264L0KM)
From: casupport@ebay.com
Date: November 26, 2008 4:52:51 PM EST (CA)

I went through our archives- and found these little gems:
Subject: Hurry, join the Powerseller Programme now!
Date: June 12, 2004 6:46:26 AM EDT (CA)
Subject: Congratulations, you're a Powerseller! Get your Powerseller benefits now.
Date: June 14, 2004 6:39:16 AM EDT (CA)

Subject: Hurry, join the Powerseller Programme now!
Date: March 11, 2005 9:54:35 AM EST (CA)
Subject: Congratulations, you're a Powerseller! Get your Powerseller benefits now.
Date: March 15, 2005 6:49:11 AM EST (CA)

So- clearly WE WERE NOT POWER SELLERS throughout that entire period!
We became Power Sellers mid 2004- then again early in 2005.
We only became POWER SELLERS again, AFTER the NEW rules came into effect in 2008.

[craftycatsattic]

"eBay will only be providing information for the time period that powerseller status was held. "

Correct.

However, that does not change the seller's responsibility and liability to include ALL his business income, not just the amount earned while a PowerSeller.

Agreed. I have been reporting all my eBay income since I started selling as a business in early 2005 but only became a PS in late 2005. It was my understanding from eBay that they would only be providing the info while powerseller status was held. I too would like to be on top of things and make sure my figures jive with what ebay is providing to the CRA. I know my figures are good but I question the accuracy of eBay's figures. Afterall, they have been very wrong many times before in a number of areas where I've had to deal with them.

Guess the only way to find out is to ask eBay for the info.

[pierrelebel]

"lina-mallows " Don't kill the messenger. Take it up with eBay:
http://pages.ebay.ca/powersellerinfo/
"The Canada Revenue Agency has requested the sales information (high bids) of items sold by members while they held PowerSeller status in 2004 and 2005."

Once again : However, that does not change the seller's responsibility and liability to include ALL his business income, not just the amount earned while a PowerSeller. .

[lina-mallows]

pierrelebel- I understand you are only the messenger.

For those that have concerns- eBay has apparently, based on the information provided to use, upon request- exceeded he demands made within the CRA request.

I have little, to no concern- except that for a company (eBay) so adamant about protecting OUR information, should be so cavalier in providing more than than requested.

[lina-mallows]

"The Canada Revenue Agency has requested the sales information (high bids) of items sold by members while they held PowerSeller status in 2004 and 2005."


I think I may have found where the misunderstanding arose-
here is what eBay wrote (http://pages.ebay.ca/powersellerinfo/)
"What information is the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) asking for?
The CRA has asked for the following information for members who held PowerSeller status in 2004 and 2005"

"WHILE THEY HELD POWERSELLER STATUS"- and "WHO HELD POWERSELLER STATUS" are two very different concepts.

Being a POWER SELLER at any point appears to make ALL the information from Jan 1- Dec 31 fair game.
And that's what eBay has provided.

[lina-mallows]

Further- down the same page (http://pages.ebay.ca/powersellerinfo/)-
"What if I was only a PowerSeller for part of the year in 2004 or 2005?
The request relates to all Canadian eBay members who held PowerSeller status at any given time in 2004 or 2005. The information that we disclosed will only include transactions which took place while the affected member held PowerSeller status. "

On principle, I will be taking this matter up with their council.

[pierrelebel]

You sure have lots of time to waste since you are not affected! .

[lina-mallows]

pierrelebel- we are all affected!
And, fortunately I have the luxury of time to take this path.

Collectively- the amount of time wasted on this exercise has to be significant.

This matter was discussed with a Lawyer last night. The question was, has eBay breached their duties by providing information that breaches their duty to us (protecting our privacy)- as sellers?

What is appalling, is how eBay, at times making up the rules as they go along. Then, finally when given a clear sense of direction by the Courts, they apparently have not followed it.

[recped]

pierrelebel- we are all affected!

The ONLY people affected in any material way are those with something to hide.

[lina-mallows]

Pierre- it is never this simple.

People have been troubled over this 'witchhunt', whether CRA comes knocking or not.
People may unnecessarily spend money doing things that are not necessary.
Even those WITH NOTHING TO HIDE- likely have no desire to have their time wasted by the CRA auditors, with a net result of ZERO.

So, those with NOTHING TO HIDE, may well be 'tarred and feathered' with the same brush as those hiding, TENS, if not HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of undeclared income!

Pierre- you yourself have stated the lengthy process you went through- and to what end? Why should you be wasting your time educating CRA auditors? I believe you had nothing to hide- yet how much of your time was wasted?

NOW- MULTIPLY THAT TIME WASTED BY THOUSANDS !!!!!

[nibor2dooh]

Recped I could not disagree more. It is not about having something to hide, a CRA "fishing" expedition is a dangerous precedent. If access to private corporate records on third party clients ( all ebay powersellers ) can be demanded without reasonable cause the potential for abuse should be evident. During one of my audits the auditor enjoyed gossiping regularily about previous corporations and which ones were in trouble etc... he specifically dwelled on a well known Pizza chain and quantified their woes with tax issues. I have trouble entrusting a monlithic government agency with unfettered and undefined (in a legal sense) access to such information. CRA current access to bank records and reporting should be sufficent in a determination of gross revenues. Do you think it would be ok to request the Royal Bank to disclose say all its information on the top 25% of its depositors beyond current legislative requirements? Some of them might have something to hide, by extension why quit there. CRA should request from Visa the top 10% of cardholders who charged the most suspicous and/or expensive items to their cards account. Why not allow them to expand fishing to who spent funds on their credit cards at hydroponics centers, escorts services, or online gambling. What other spending patterns potentially correlate with people who have something to hide? Antimoney Laundering laws and the Canadian Bank Act have been enacted to identify what by law must be reported if CRA wants expanded powers to regulate the ecommerce environment then legislation --LAWS-- should be created to define their powers as with the banking industry. This appeal to the courts is an aggressive backdoor approach in my opinion, that circumvents the proper regulatory process, a process that inherently develops a system of defined checks and balances that protects all of us.

[lina-mallows]

nibor2dooh- I'm with you.
This is a fishing expedition- with a VERY BIG NET!

[pierrelebel]

"This is a fishing expedition"

I agree. It is a fishing expedition by CRA.

The difference here is that I see nothing wrong with them going after tax cheaters. .

[nibor2dooh]

There is nothing wrong with them pursuing tax cheaters however they should be forced to follow a code of ethics and statuatory guidelines to prevent abusive or misguided overzealous applications of their LEGISLATED authority. To have blanket access to private records beyond those that are required by law to be reported is an infringement of an individuals/corporations rights and freedom. This is a slippery slope, certainly access to specific accounts which they have a reasonable threshold of evidence to believe may be noncompliant should be investigsted. When you allow unfettered shotgun fishing expeditions you abdicate your rights and meekly subordinate the freedom of all.

[dagr8_renaud]

Pierre , the problem here is clearly not them going after tax cheaters but them fishing for those .. Clearly collateral damage is to be expected here , I do not wish this to anyone , I dont feel concerned as my incomes are not attractive to them , but anybody making a lot should be expecting ... One of my aunt is works on the road , she drives around 80 000 to 120 000 km a year , of course she declares her gaz fee , Governement asked her for her last 5 year Gaz receipts , I already hear you saying they have the right to do so , but you get the point .

[pierrelebel]

"but them fishing for those "

You are correct.

How else will CRA find them? Anyone here want to defend them? .

[nibor2dooh]

So Pierre, by analogy, the government should have unrestricted access while investigating potential cheaters or those who may be committing a crime (clearly income tax envasion is a crime with appropriate penalties) this is justification for a fishing expedition ? You cannot be serious I will defend everyones rights, including unfortunately the cheaters , if you ignore the right to privacy and freedoms of all individuals you ignore what gives our system its strength. How else will they find them ? The end justifies the means right ? The road to Stalinism is paved by that logic. Might be idea to fingerprint entire population in case they might commit a crime. You will not defend the criminals will you? Why not ask the courts to force medical practitioners to disclose all mental health records so we can identify who might be a potential criminal. You could certainly trust a government to do the right thing. If CRA needs to get ebay records or any other corporations then create legislation to give them this power. Since there might be resistance or more likely outrage it is easier to back door the rules and seek the court order. This bypasses everyones right to privacy and is an abusive precedent by a government ministry .

[recped]

For some comments written by someone better versed on the topic than any of us:

http://www.osler.com/resources.aspx?id=16214

The most recent Appeal decision:

http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2008/2008fca348/2008fca348.html

Previous appeal

http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2008/2008fca141/2008fca141.html