eBay Cooperates with ATO Audits

The Australian Tax Office (ATO) has asked for the personal and financial details of Australian eBay sellers who have annual sales of more than $50,000.00 (AUS) in an effort to determine whether such sellers are avoiding Australia’s goods and services tax (GST). In compliance with its privacy policy, eBay, a global auction and shopping website, provided the ATO with members’ contact names, user names, phone numbers, duration of membership, and monthly sales turnover for the period of July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2006. The ATO audit could potentially affect up to 1,000 Australian eBay sellers who may not be claiming GST on their sales in order to undercut competitors. At least one seller has gone into liquidation as a result of the audits.

eBay Australia is operated by eBay International, based in Bern, Switzerland, and is therefore not required to register for GST. Consequently, there is no GST on invoices sent by eBay Australia to its sellers for using related services. Some eBay sellers, however, may have falsely assumed that such invoices included GST, and may have made claims to the ATO to recoup such amounts. While representatives at eBay maintain that sellers are responsible for their own accounting practices, representatives at the Professional eBay Sellers Association have suggested that eBay register its local operation in Australia and obtain an Australian business number for GST purposes.

This entry first appeared in the March 22, 2007 edition of lawsof.com. For additional information, click here.

U.S. Patent System Harms Innovation

One objective of a modern patent system is to encourage the introduction of new ideas, goods, services, and practices for the benefit of society. Despite this well-accepted directive, innovation can be harmed by chronic imbalances in patent systems. This article provides a birds-eye view of the U.S. patent regime and how it stacks up to its Canadian counterpart. The article highlights differences in approach, recent case-law, and the possibility of change amidst a confluence of factors, including the highly anticipated U.S. Supreme Court decision in Teleflex Inc. v. KSR Int’l Co.

This article first appeared in the March 9, 2007 issue of The Lawyers Weekly. To download and read the full article, click here (Adobe Reader required).

Wireless Spammer Pays

Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”), a large US-based wireless data provider, recently obtained a permanent injunction and default judgment against Specialized Programming and Marketing LLC (“Specialized”) and its owner, Charles Henderson. Specialized and Charles Henderson were ordered to pay over $200,000.00 in damages based on claims that they sent almost 100,000 unsolicited text messages to Verizon customers offering them a prize vacation. The lawsuit against Specialized and Charles Henderson was initially filed in October 2005 against Passport Holidays, a Florida-based wholesale distributor of travel packages. However, in February 2006, Passport Holidays reached a settlement with Verizon and named Specialized and Charles Henderson as those directly responsible for sending the spam messages.

Individuals and corporations sending spam to US wireless phone customers using “auto-dialing” equipment and deceptive means to mask the source of such messages can be found in violation of the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

This entry first appeared in the March 8, 2007 edition of lawsof.com. For additional information, click here.