New VAT rules

mikeanywhere · 19-02-2009 9:12am #1

Sorry if this is was posted elsewhere but to be honest I couldn't be assed bothered to do a detailed search

Very handy for those wanting to know what is rated at what rate or zero rated etc.

VAT Rules for photography

AnimalRights · 19-02-2009 9:41am

21.5% makes my blood boil everytime. :mad:

CabanSail · 19-02-2009 10:59am

What's the deal here that certain "artists" are Tax Exempt? I have never figured that one out, or really looked into it much. I have just heard about it.

xshayx · 19-02-2009 11:06am

CabanSail wrote: »

What's the deal here that certain "artists" are Tax Exempt? I have never figured that one out, or really looked into it much. I have just heard about it.

"Under the Irish Artists Tax Exemption 'Artist' is defined as any writer, composer, painter or sculptor who has produced a work that is 'original and creative' and has cultural or artistic merit. Income derived from the work may be received tax free if the above conditions are met and the taxpayer is an Irish tax resident."

DaireQuinlan · 19-02-2009 11:09am

AnimalRights wrote: »

21.5% makes my blood boil everytime. :mad:

and whats with the digital "downlining" (sic) ??!?
I go and get my negs developed and prints done ... 13.5%. Fair enough.
I go and get my negs developed and PUT ONTO CD ... 21.5%

WTF ?!?

The two actions are functionally identical, but one has to do with DIGITAL. ooooooo ! thats worth another 8% right there ...

DaireQuinlan · 19-02-2009 11:12am

xshayx wrote: »

"Under the Irish Artists Tax Exemption 'Artist' is defined as any writer, composer, painter or sculptor who has produced a work that is 'original and creative' and has cultural or artistic merit. Income derived from the work may be received tax free if the above conditions are met and the taxpayer is an Irish tax resident."

Yeah thats been the case for the last god knows how long. Haughey introduced it IIRC. It's why, up until recently, bands like U2 actually STAYED in the country as opposed to moving lock stock and barrel to some tax haven. Of course now that their non music related earnings are presumably bigger than their music related ones they're doing a legger.

People complain about it all the time. Bear in mind though that for every U2 there are thousands of struggling, impoverished souls trying desperately to repeat cecelia aherns' success

Covey · 19-02-2009 11:25am

CabanSail wrote: »

What's the deal here that certain "artists" are Tax Exempt? I have never figured that one out, or really looked into it much. I have just heard about it.

Tax Exempt is not exemption from all taxes, but solely Income Tax. It does not exempt anyone from VAT.

CabanSail · 19-02-2009 11:25am

I am curious as to why Photographers are not included in that along with writers, composers, painters or sculptors?

Covey · 19-02-2009 11:29am

CabanSail wrote: »

I am curious as to why Photographers are not included in that along with writers, composers, painters or sculptors?

They are.

Overblood · 19-02-2009 12:22pm

CabanSail wrote: »

I am curious as to why Photographers are not included in that along with writers, composers, painters or sculptors?

they are

Like the average wedding photographer? I doubt it. Wedding photos aren't really artistic.

Borderfox · 19-02-2009 12:31pm

Overblood, your a funny guy...

Looking in the sports/event/pr If I supply on a disc its 13.5% but if I email then its 21.5% how does that change anything?

maddogcollins · 19-02-2009 12:33pm

I go and get my negs developed and prints done ... 13.5%. Fair enough.

Providing a service is charged at 13.5%

I go and get my negs developed and PUT ONTO CD ... 21.5%

Purchasing a good (the CD) is charged at 21.5%

Borderfox · 19-02-2009 12:35pm

Maddogcollins they do the opposite for sports/event/pr work

Covey · 19-02-2009 12:37pm

Overblood wrote: »

Like the average wedding photographer? I doubt it. Wedding photos aren't really artistic.

Photographers have as much right as artists have to tax exemption, ragardless of you doubting it or not. They must, as indeed do all other artists, meet the criteria laid down.

Commercial photography as also other commercial art forms does not qualify.

DaireQuinlan · 19-02-2009 12:37pm

maddogcollins wrote: »

I go and get my negs developed and prints done ... 13.5%. Fair enough.

Providing a service is charged at 13.5%

I go and get my negs developed and PUT ONTO CD ... 21.5%

Purchasing a good (the CD) is charged at 21.5%

Ah, but I'm purchasing prints in the first case, the only difference is that in the second case the scans are digital files put on disk. In the first case they're digital files that have been printed. The only substantive difference is in the medium.

DaireQuinlan · 19-02-2009 12:40pm

Covey wrote: »

Photographers have as much right as artists have to tax exemption, ragardless of you doubting it or not. They must, as indeed do all other artists, meet the criteria laid down.

Commercial photography as also other commercial art forms does not qualify.

Yeah the whole exemption is a bit of a grey area. My sister, for example, is an artist. She does watercolours and embroidery, which she sells in galleries. She does not have to pay tax on the proceeds. Sometimes she does up a batch of bags, using much the same techniques that she uses for her embroideries except for the fact that they're, well, -bag- shaped. These however qualify as 'crafts' and she's liable for tax on what she makes. I'm guessing its things like this that explain why we have tax lawyers :-)

Covey · 19-02-2009 12:44pm

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Yeah the whole exemption is a bit of a grey area. My sister, for example, is an artist. She does watercolours and embroidery, which she sells in galleries. She does not have to pay tax on the proceeds. Sometimes she does up a batch of bags, using much the same techniques that she uses for her embroideries except for the fact that they're, well, -bag- shaped. These however qualify as 'crafts' and she's liable for tax on what she makes. I'm guessing its things like this that explain why we have tax lawyers :-)

The criteria are pretty staightforward actually. Mass production and so called "volume" sales do impact as above.

Borderfox · 19-02-2009 12:50pm

Bit rough but you get the message

mikeanywhere · 19-02-2009 12:53pm

Borderfox wrote: »

Bit rough but you get the message

Most original so therefore no tax required!! muhahahaha

Borderfox · 19-02-2009 12:55pm

I am an artist Mike!! at last

DaireQuinlan · 19-02-2009 1:01pm

Where -does- this actually impact on photo sales ? If you have a wee little gallery selling prints of your landscape shots then I'm guessing here that you'll be paying tax on the proceeds. When does photography start qualifying as 'artistic' ? Is it on a commission basis ? Does the revenue have some way of objectively quantifying the cut off point for something having "artistic and cultural merit" ?

mikeanywhere · 19-02-2009 1:10pm

Borderfox wrote: »

I am an artist Mike!! at last

Never any doubt mate

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Where -does- this actually impact on photo sales ? If you have a wee little gallery selling prints of your landscape shots then I'm guessing here that you'll be paying tax on the proceeds. When does photography start qualifying as 'artistic' ? Is it on a commission basis ? Does the revenue have some way of objectively quantifying the cut off point for something having "artistic and cultural merit" ?

The problem is that people you talk to in the Revenue have no clue which doesn't make it any easier. Get a savy accountant to sort it out for you!!

:cool:

Covey · 19-02-2009 1:28pm

mikeanywhere wrote: »

Get a savy accountant to sort it out for you!! :cool:

Thanks Mike

For photographers, it's not uncommon that tax fee sales are restricted to 5 copies though. That's assuming you're a qualifiyng artist.

paudie · 19-02-2009 1:29pm

There's a bit in the appendix about artistic prints being signed and limited to 30 prints, anything other than this is commercial I think.

Cabaal · 19-02-2009 2:03pm

Overblood wrote: »

Like the average wedding photographer? I doubt it. Wedding photos aren't really artistic.

Ah now I wouldn't say that, there are many many different styles
Its like saying a portrait painter isn't very artistic because all of his/her stuff is pretty much the same

Overblood · 19-02-2009 2:26pm

Covey wrote: »

Photographers have as much right as artists have to tax exemption, ragardless of you doubting it or not. They must, as indeed do all other artists, meet the criteria laid down.

Commercial photography as also other commercial art forms does not qualify.

So somebody like this guy http://www.cyrilhelnwein.com/ would be tax exempt, whereas "Joe Spud Wedding Photography Ltd." wouldn't?

DaireQuinlan · 19-02-2009 2:30pm

Overblood wrote: »

So somebody like this guy http://www.cyrilhelnwein.com/ would be tax exempt, whereas "Joe Spud Wedding Photography Ltd." wouldn't?

I'd imagine (IANAL) that it depends on what he was doing. If he was selling limited edition prints of his "myths" series in a gallery it would be tax exempt. If he was shooting a wedding he'd have to pay tax.

Overblood · 19-02-2009 2:37pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Ah now I wouldn't say that, there are many many different styles
Its like saying a portrait painter isn't very artistic because all of his/her stuff is pretty much the same

A painted portrait requires much more artistic skill than taking a photo IMO. And you're welcome to prove me wrong about the artistic wedding photos comment. I haven't seen any wedding photos that cause the word "art" to spring up in my mind, but then again, "what is art?" oooooooh:pac:

mikeanywhere · 19-02-2009 3:10pm

Overblood wrote: »

A painted portrait requires much more artistic skill than taking a photo IMO. And you're welcome to prove me wrong about the artistic wedding photos comment. I haven't seen any wedding photos that cause the word "art" to spring up in my mind, but then again, "what is art?" oooooooh:pac:

I beg to differ but then that is another conversation another time!!

maddogcollins · 19-02-2009 3:55pm

Borderfox wrote: »

Overblood, your a funny guy...

Looking in the sports/event/pr If I supply on a disc its 13.5% but if I email then its 21.5% how does that change anything?

You have this wrong borderfox.
The VAT rules are as follows:

Where work is commissioned and handed over in hard copy (physical prints (as it is part of the service) the 13.5% rate applies.

The supply of negatives and exposed film by professional photographers, including uncommissioned photographs accepted by newspapers from photographers also qualifies for the lower 13.5% rate.

It should be noted that the supply of such work on disc is subject to the 21.5% rate of VAT.

See attachment for example.

Also reference to the above is available on :

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/leaflets/photography.html

Eirebear · 19-02-2009 4:06pm

Borderfox wrote: »

I am an artist Mike!! at last

No more Weddings for you then dude!

Phototoxin · 19-02-2009 5:41pm

A painted portrait requires much more artistic skill than taking a photo IMO. And you're welcome to prove me wrong about the artistic wedding photos comment. I haven't seen any wedding photos that cause the word "art" to spring up in my mind, but then again, "what is art?" oooooooh

I think wedding photography is classes as commercial as lets be fair the photographer isn't going to be there unless they are getting paid. Contrast to same photographer going off their own bat to some mad place to make photos purely for artistic purposes.

That said you could get around it by doing the wedding for free and then charging for the art of the prints at the end.

Anyway I'm not sure - I think successful artists (in a lot of fields) get paid a lot of money for doing a lot of nothing in some respects whereas mr scientist working for a cure to cancer gets taxed along with mr struggling artist. I guess the law is there to teach us one thing : hate the big guy!

Now, aside from us planning to kill the finance minister (and photograph it for 'artistic' purposes) what does it ultimately mean for us ? I'm assuming its still better to buy up 'deh norte' than in an actual shop in ireland ?

New VAT rules

Comments