Comment by dataflow
5 days ago
The mere fact that they have to avoid dealing with sales tax here (unlike their typical transactions) is clearly extra complication for them. So you can understand that sales tax being 0% (thus "not taxable") can make things harder, not easier.
Having to deal with bookkeeping or paperwork for tax deductions could also make things harder.
In any case, whether you think these are easier or harder, and regardless of which cases should be supported from a business perspective, their policy page (at least the one that I'm reading) very clearly says you can't use their system for such donations.
If you can't use their systems for a donation with a sales tax rate of 0%, then per the policy that means you can route users to alternative payment methods for those transactions. So by your reasoning, if donations to OSC are not subject to sales tax, then what the app is doing should be okay.
(As an aside, I have no idea if donations to OSC are subject to sales tax, but I would be surprised if they were given there is no sale or supply happening, and no one here seems to have suggested they are.)
> In any case, whether you think these are easier or harder, and regardless of which cases should be supported from a business perspective, their policy page (at least the one that I'm reading) very clearly says you can't use their system for such donations.
I disagree, because it uses the loose term "tax exempt donations", and nobody, it seems, can agree on whether that means exempt from income tax (ie, recipient does not need to pay income tax on it), exempt from sales tax, or deductible for income tax purposes (personally I think this is likely what it is intended to capture, and the only real basis on which to distinguish between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(6) organisations, but in fact is the least supported by a literal reading).
> If you can't use their systems for a donation with a sales tax rate of 0%, then per the policy that means you can route users to alternative payment methods for those transactions. So by your reasoning, if donations to OSC are not subject to sales tax, then what the app is doing should be okay.
I'm not seeing "if not {this}... then {that}" implication anywhere that you're citing. i.e. I do not see anything that implies at least one of the billing systems must be permitted for any given app. All I'm seeing are some sets of conditions under which you can use Google's payment system, and other sets of conditions under which you can use an alternative billing system. Sometimes they overlap and sometimes neither applies.
What's clear to me is:
- Page [1] says that you can't use their billing systems for "tax-exempt donations" (however that is supposed to be interpreted).
- Google's last correspondence says "For more information about alternative billing and external linking options available in some countries and regions, see the FAQ", and does not claim that such options are (or aren't) available to them. Page [2] says that this varies by country, and it's not clear to me what countries apply to them, but they seem to be in Japan. I am unclear on what they have/haven't done here, but it sounds like they have not followed all the requirements in [3] (or whatever the relevant requirements are), as [1] says: "Developers serving users in eligible countries/regions may offer users an alternative billing system within the app if they enroll in the applicable program and agree to the additional terms and program requirements."
I'm not sure if you have more information beyond this, but that's all I'm taking away so far. Perhaps I'm missing something?
And obligatory disclaimer (because this is HN): none of this is to suggest I like these circumstances; I'm just discussing the facts as I see them written.
[1] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
[2] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/topi...
[3] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
And they were not right? The issue here is that Google doesn't define tax-exempt properly, but does tell you to not use play. And then throws a fitty when you do that and they decided it's not the right kind of tax exempt?
At least,that is how i read it.
And then the way google deals with these cases is the real problem: no communication, no recourse, just spam HN and pray.
And I am 99.99% certain they don't want such transactions for some other reason, perhaps they can't make as much money from them orso
I'm pretty sure they could support this if they wanted to, which implies they don't want such transactions. And they obviously aren't going to make it easy to get around something they don't want. So we agree on that. It sucks. I'm not debating any of that. I think our only disagreement is on whether the policy is clear, and AFAICT it is, as terrible as it might be.