It was a figure of speech… a phrase used in a non-literal / rhetorical sense.
Maybe not so smart to advertise tax evasion in such a thread, don’t you think? 
4 Likes
How is it tax evasion if I meet up with you, give you 25.000$ and you give me an invoice for services provided. Only I choose to give you that money in cash rather than via a bank transfer? Let’s not interpret things to illegal depths.
oh boy I have no idea what country you are from but stop advicing people to cross borders to get their money in cash please…
7 Likes
I see your nickname is Creattive. It’s not “accountant” and last time I checked, any company from any country, can pay for goods and services to other companies from other countries using MONEY. Therefore, by your logic, no one can purchase anything outside their own border using cash.
The whole purpose of CASH & Bank Transfers for companies is to PAY Invoices.
Person 1 has a company in the Country 2. Person 2 has a company in Country 1. Person 1 can travel to Person 2’s country and withdraw money from a bank. After that, he can PAY an Invoice. I mean, seriously, who travels with $10.000+ in cash in their pocket. Of course there are banks where you can withdraw money from.
Seriously, have you hear about multi-national companies? I’d strongly suggest talking to your accountant. I know at least 5 authors here who do this, and have companies and use invoices and it’s completely legal. So therefore, please talk to your accountant.
We’re not talking about smuggling 5 cargo containers filled with cash here. It’s paying for a legal invoice between 2 company managers in 2 different countries that meet and sign the invoice in the others country. How can you even think that’s illegal?!
I mean, seriously, by your logic, absolutely all technology companies in the world are making BILLIONS of dollars worth of tax evasion.
I’ll tell you a huge secret, there are a lot of countries in the world (in addition to the US and Australia), and in many of them its own tax law. For example, what do you know about the so-called “Google Tax Law”? I’m sure you do not know anything. Due to the fact that the number of withdrawals transactions is increasing, and the Author, according to the law, can withdraw money only through the swift – this increases his spending on the withdrawal of his money. Add to this the fact that he works with other Authors of TF from other countries, and maybe then you finally understand something.
So please, stop writing about what you have no idea about, seriously.
2 Likes
Again, we have to correct you, it doesn’t work the same for all countries! We already tried Payoneer and although Payoneer doesn’t block any country, there are specific restrictions, for example in our country and in one of our partners country. Like you wrongly said with Paypal (which will now cause authors who have to stick that that method lots of extra money in fees), this methods vary from country to country and are not all the same. The thing here is that Envato is supposed to simplify things for authors, not give them new headaches. Because, taking your example, people go from having three methods of payment (Paypal, SWIFT and Payoneer) to just one! You see what we are saying?
Yes, and only if you send from US account to another US account, and 2.9% is the lowest fee, like we told you some countries have 5.4%+0.30USD…that’s a lot!
And that’s for a lot of authors, take a look at this for example, from @kreatura
and he is a Power Elite Author! As we said in our previous post, the backlash is not something new, please check the links we posted before. Again, the uproar was so big that @collis himself had to provide (temporal) solution for split withdrawals.
2 Likes
First off. This is a forum, and last time I checked I can have an opinion be it wrong or in this case not. Secondly, you should really check the community guidelines about your forum conduct before I or my colleague moderators will start applying the community rules and suspend you. Last time I checked telling someone to shut up politely or not is not allowed, neither is flaming a conversation. If you have an opinion, share it, and accept that others may have a different one.
** Google TAX** is just a figure of speech and it has absolutely nothing to do with paying your partner in another country using a legal invoice. It refers to tax planning strategies used by multinational companies that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules to artificially shift profits to low or no-tax locations where there is little or no economic activity. If you earn 50.000$, and you move 25.000$ to another country where taxes are low or non-existent, TO YOUR OWN ACCOUNT then you are the perfect definition of the so called Google TAX. But since you ( Person 1 / Company 1 ) are earning 50.000$ and your partner ( Person 2 / Company 2 ) sends you an INVOICE for PROVIDED SERVICES and you pay that invoice to a completely different person, please tell me how are you passing money to yourself in a different country where the tax rules are lighter? Because in that case, I think 90% of the companies in the world are doing the Google Tax evasion trick.
So before telling me to shut up, please read more about the “Google Tax Law” except it’s title, because it’s clear you’re just throwing things in this conversation of which you known absolutely nothing about, it applies to the SAME company trying to move their assets to pay less tax per profit and income, not to different entities. Then learn what Invoices are and how multinational companies, which you and your partner MUST BE in order to transfer money for services from one to another. It’s actually quite easy, and as I’ve previously mentioned, there are authors here doing it, with expert accountant advice and completely legal paperworks. Just a company paying another company in a different country for services paid. Not a company moving money from one bank account in country A to country B to avoid taxes.
They advocate 0 taxes. Probably because they like Envato have to abide by the rules of countries, and not the interwebs.
Yeap. I understand your point of view. If you are in countries where Payoneer have their hands tied and there is no PayPal 0% Tax like in the US … then … you are pretty much out of luck…
US to US is free. I sent you a link. Probably I misunderstood, but I see your point.
Guys, things will always be like this. You make money, you pay taxes, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay. It’s the way the world has ( unfortunately ) always worked.
Oh, and one more thing, yes, something else has changed: the ability to make split withdrawals, because in the past Envato implemented a temporal solution for that because of the backlash in the original topic, but in this new announcement there’s nothing about that. Anyway, what we really want is that for Envato to try and implement new tools to help authors in partnerships and or team,that’s why we created this topic (Petition to Envato) Partnership Tools to offer and exchange new ideas to build around this new changes, do you think that that is such a bad thing?
Yes, US to US is free, that’s what we told in our post, but only there, from US to worldwide is 2.9%+0.30USD and for transaction to and from another countries the fees can get really high, and let’s be honest, most partnerships are composed of people in different countries
Yes, but taxes and restrictions are different things, that’s why we objected to the Payoneer option, not all authors from all countries have the same possibilities, which leaves authors the only possibility of paying more for something that they previously didn’t have to 
We understand that, but as we told you, this being a worldwide community, affects people in different ways, more when authors work in teams or partnerships. And the problem here is not paying taxes, the problem here are the new fees that authors will have to pay, that’s why the backlash you said you were amazed by. And some people will now have to pay to their eyeballs! For example: Pay US withholding tax + new transaction fee + their own country tax + conversion or transaction fee (that some banks around the world charge for)
3 Likes
I truly understand all your points of view, and I believe you guys are on the wrong side of luck in this situation, but, in cases where 0% if possible, that’s absolutely awesome for those authors and those countries, and I’m fairly certain the Legal Team at Envato are running left and right trying to find the best solutions for everyone. The main idea is that that temporary solution Envato talked about, was, as you said, temporal.
Envato has to make us ( the authors ) happy but it also has to make the legal team happy. The sad side is that if they don’t make us happy we scream and cry, but if they don’t make the legal team happy, Envato ceases to exist because they then start committing illegal actions on an international level which I’m certain you understand will have catastrophic consequences.
Unfortunately this situation a matter of legal terms, things we feel unjustified other countries have and we don’t or vice versa, but the law is the law, and if Envato doesn’t follow it, we’re the ones to suffer all the consequences if they get shut down, if Envato follows it, we still have consequences only they don’t include 100% loss of money, but a certain percentage…
Thanks for sharing your point of view so clearly. I knew there would be some countries to get extra taxes, but, as I’ve mentioned above, I’m certain Envato’s Legal Team tried to dodge all bullets as much as possible, because if we leave, they loose, so it’s in their interest that we’re happy and increasing the overall market value. Cheers!
2 Likes
@enabled We understand the legality of the situation, that’s why we created the topic we linked before (Petition to Envato) Partnership Tools . Knowing that there are some things that can’t be changed, but we can always strive to find new alternatives to make things easier to those who are “on the wrong side of luck” as you said. That’s why we are hoping for…that Envato could find a way, via new tools or another option, to help authors in partnerships and teams avoid this new fees.
Anyway, we only replied because in your first post it seemed that you didn’t understood why people were so up in arms about this and we wanted to share the other side of the story so you could understand why this change was so terrible for so many authors from different countries around the world and the restrictions these new changes carry
Cheers!
First, re-read carefully your first message addressed to all authors.
Secondly, not only you can have your own opinion. I have already described you mine.
Third, do not misinterpret other people’s words, guided by imagination, not facts. If I wanted to say exactly the words that you ascribe to me, then trust me - I would say exactly that.
p.s. I would be happy to continue this dialogue, explaining in detail to you and your other misconceptions about the tax law (and not so superficial information from Google, which you are guided by), but unfortunately the desire has already disappeared, and there is no sense because your suspiciousness will turn it into a monologue. I wish you success, all the best.
Mate, I’m author myself, I’m in the same boat as you. I know perfectly well that some legal things cause more headaches than they solve, but we’re always trying to find good solutions ourselves! I’m glad you explained this situation of yours. I’m always interested in hearing what other authors have to work with! Cheers mate!
That’s interesting. Last time I checked this is the polite version of making someone shut up. If I were to tell you - So please, stop writing about what you have no idea about. - Seriously, what would you understand? I’m not face to face with you, so no, I can’t read your mind or your body language.
I’m well aware of the Google Tax law mate, I simply fail to see why you would bring it up. My previous arguments and this situation is clearly completely different than that law. As I’ve mentioned before, that applies to Company 1, sending money to Company 1 in a different state to pay less taxes. Here we were talking about 2 different people.
In any case. I wish you the same, and I hope you can look at arguments with a more positive outlook. Remember, this is a forum in the end. I will always argument my opinion and accept my wrong if presented with a better or a legal argument. The entire community is based on the idea of evolving as a group, and that means accepting mistakes and growing from them!
Totally agree, man. Moreover, I never once wrote that this new rule is bad or good because I understand why Envato took this step. Especially this has been warned for a long time. We will somehow adjust, not for the first time 
2 Likes
Fair enough! In that case we both expressed the same idea in a different way and started an argument over basically nothing. Haha! Cheers mate! Let’s see other opinions and ideas, maybe one will save the day!
2 Likes
In a matter of deescalation, let me explain the problem I had here.
I think that in your first post, this sentence was worded very unfortunate:
It is just a tad bit too dangerous in my opinion to post a sentence like this here because it can be interpreted in a way you might not have intended it to sound like.
The source of the problem lies in the term “taxes” you used here, I think, while a better term for what you were trying to express would have been “swift payment fees”.
Telling someone the solution to avoid “taxes” by travelling to another country and making a cash transaction is really not appropriate, in my opinion, and I hope you agree here.
You have explained your intentions better in your following posts, but I still stand by my words that the sentence in question is very unfortunate in a thread like this.
While I hope that I could make you understand my point of view, I have to recognize a very passive agressive tone in your posts. If I did trigger that by the expression of my wish to not post dangerously misinterpetable sentences like this, let me tell you it was not my intention to offend you personally.
Cheers from me as well!
I agree. Reading it like that does sound extremely dangerous, but being a company, and every author here must legally be the same thing I based my argument on the assumption that no one here would just pop in a car and drive over countless borders with 50$ in their pocket. That indeed would most likely land anyone in jail or at least have their money confiscated haha!
Not avoid. You still pay taxes for your money. Most countries have deductibles. “Company Spent Money” so if you’d pay your partner, for an invoice, even in another country, money that came in your bank account, for services he provided, that would fall ( in most countries ) as a deductible. The company paid for services to keep the company running. I’m not certain so don’t take my exact words for this, but I know for a fact certain countries have deductibles.
So, hypothetically. Let’s say you have to pay tax 10% from everything you earn. You earned $10.000 and your partner invoices you for $5.000. You pay your partner that money, cash, in another country, with a legal invoice to prove for it, and therefore, that amount is inserted in your company as a deductible. Meaning you pay only 10% of $5.000.
This would mean you LEGALLY skip taxes, because YOU pay your taxes in your country, and your partner being paid by invoice, with a source for the cash has to pay in his.
I see this as perfectly lega.
I’m sorry of I came out as passive aggressive. That was not my intent! I hope I clarified my initial post now, and I believe it makes more sense now. Let me know if you have deductibles and if this system could apply to you.
Yes I know now how you meant it, and your last post really made it even more clear so thank you for that! You didn’t mean to avoid taxes but what I’m on about is that when I read this (bold text applied by me for sake of clarity):
then it just totally sounds like that anything that follows that phrase is a solution to the problem of “not wanting to pay taxes” which are the exact words. And then following:
Just opens up the box of pandora of wild interpretations here.
And that is what I was meaning to express, that you should not word it like that. I did totally understand how you meant it after reading your following posts and hopefully everyone else has understood it as well by now.
Just a very very unfortunate choice of words by using “don’t want to pay […] taxes”, and then followed by “plane tickets are cheap. Go on holiday”.
You of course meant with that to pay an invoice in cash, and then file in the invoice as a proof of business costs and use that as deductable. That is possible in many countries, might not be in all countries the case though, I don’t know. However, it is best if it can be proofed by a bank transfer to back that up. a high amount paid in cash DOES raise the alarm clocks in many countries financial institutes.
Also, you said you meant to withdraw the money in the country where it is spend as opposed to taking a lot of cash across borders, which is indeed another way your first statement can be interpreted and what can and will raise alarm clocks (or may be even illegal) in some countries. Hence, again a reason for me to say that this is a dangerous thing to post.
But even when withdrawing in the destination country, depending on the bank someone is using this will also result in bank fees so the whole point of travelling to the country to avoid the fees is gone.
So what I’m trying to say: what you’ve written can be interpreted in a lot of wrong ways, the term “taxes” was a very unfortunate choice, and even if someone does understand you correctly your statement might not hold up and there might be fees anyway (again, depending on the bank).
And now, I hope everything is made clear and we can forget about that stupid sentence and all brainstorm together if we find a solution to many authors problems here
added after edit: feel free to send me a private message if you want to talk about this any further, I have the feeling I am drifting this thread away from its purpose
1 Like
@jamesgiroux could you please tell me - can I have 2 accounts on my name - both exclusive? Just because of to not fall under limit 5 track/week ?
People can and do have more than one exclusive account. As far as I’m aware, it’s never been documented anywhere that you can’t have two exclusive accounts and when people have mentioned doing so in the forums, nobody has chipped in from Envato to say it’s not allowed.
However, if you’re creating a second account purely to circumvent the rules regarding how many tracks you can have in the queue… then that might not be looked on very favourably. And in theory, Envato could delete one or both accounts if they weren’t very happy about you doing so. Whether they would or not is a different matter entirely, but I wouldn’t risk it. The simplest solution would have been to open another exclusive account without publicly stating why you were opening a second exclusive account… but it’s maybe a little bit too late for that now.
And keep in mind that if your sales are split between two accounts, it will take you twice as long to reach the next commission levels.