Magis Global –

March 11, 2021

The Commission

Category: General – Tags: , – Joan – 6:48 am

In the Commission business these risks but the companies come to the artist. The Commission agent, a gallery or art action, legally a business care order for the artist performs, for only in so far liability is, as the usual care of ordinary merchants for such orders to apply (section 384 HGB). Additional information at JPMorgan Chase supports this article. Already, the insurance of the artwork as is only duty of the Commissioners, if the principal, has expressly instructed him (section 390 para 2 HGB). For the Agency, the art dealer receives a Commission ( 396 HGB), he achieved no commercial revenue. His freedom of action is restricted (article 385-387 HGB). The application of the 30% package to the full rate of the value added tax is not in question, because they lack the mandatory requirements: the “purchase price”, the share of the artist in the sale proceeds after deduction of commissions of the dealer, so typically it is clear and is not exactly insignificant with an average of approximately 50-60% of the retail price (including all expenses). Views from all this is that for the execution of Commissions with artifacts, an art dealer from an artist has taken from his own work in Commission, also in 2014, will continue to apply the calculation of the reduced VAT rate of 7%.

At least as long, until you come up with something new, to the jungle itself uberkreuzenden and opposing legislation with the intention to deepen, to collect as much money. A small fact should be mentioned, which results from the practice itself but precise procedures pursuant to section 384 paragraph 2 HGB resolve. The full proceeds is according to the law the principal if the principal sold a work, even if he sells more expensive than originally planned. At the same time, the artist owes the agreed Commission the dealer at that time. According to the law, the dealer would have to pay first the full sales proceeds to the artist what it pays back the payment paid to the dealer. In practice, this is easily by offsetting in the Account procedure (section 355HGB) solved, the art dealer paid the difference of the proceeds minus the Commission, when sale of the work simply what greatly simplifies the creation of the document and the booking expenses.

So far was taken so that the sales price agreement between Gallery and artist (mostly) as gross price was agreed upon, so including 7% VAT for art decreased. The allocation procedures described include parts of this VAT in the payment to the artist, as well as in the Commission retained by the art dealer. Both led your share as redeemed VAT to the tax off and so well. A deduction of the art dealer was possible if his outgoing invoice to the customer again contained the full sales tax. Should individual tax authorities will displease this practice (because she then must get logged sales to 7% sales tax from an art dealer, after your official worldview no longer be what) this problem can be resolved where the art dealer for the sale of the work to the artist pays out the full net proceeds minus his net Commission, plus the entire VAT, so which then can run off his IRS. However, the Commission is then both in the books of the merchant as the artist as book sales tax Commission. Increases the sales invoice of the artist on the sum of the full proceeds of the sale, which the art dealer drops to the sum of the commissions, the profit remains unchanged at two. Martin eller

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.