France is currently at the centre of a tax debate affecting European e-commerce: the proposed increase in taxes on small imported parcels. Industry groups warn that unilateral national measures could undermine competitiveness if they diverge from broader European Union frameworks. This discussion reflects broader changes in EU customs policy, evolving dynamics of cross-border online retail, and growing regulatory scrutiny of global marketplaces.

France’s Proposed Parcel Tax Increase

French policymakers have explored raising a national levy on low-value parcels entering the country, with some proposals suggesting increasing the charge from around €2 to €5 per parcel. Industry associations such as the Fédération française du e-commerce argue that a higher national tax could backfire economically by diverting logistics flows to neighbouring countries with lower charges.

France has also moved ahead with implementing a handling fee of about €2 on low-value imports under €150, aimed at covering customs administration costs and addressing the rapid growth of cross-border e-commerce shipments.

The concern among e-commerce stakeholders is that if France acts independently rather than aligning with EU-wide policies, companies may route parcels through other European hubs, reducing French tax revenues and weakening local logistics ecosystems.

Alignment With EU Customs Policy

At the European level, the EU has agreed to introduce a temporary €3 customs duty on low-value parcels entering the bloc starting in July 2026. This measure is intended to address competitive imbalances between European retailers and non-EU online sellers shipping inexpensive products directly to consumers.

The reform also aims to phase out the longstanding exemption from customs duties for parcels valued under €150, which policymakers believe has favoured overseas e-commerce platforms over EU-based businesses.

Industry advocates argue that national taxes exceeding EU-level charges could fragment the single market, contradicting the goal of harmonised trade rules across member states.

Competitive Concerns for French E-Commerce

E-commerce organisations warn that higher national parcel taxes could produce several unintended effects:

Logistics Diversion

International sellers might reroute shipments through neighbouring EU countries with lower taxes, then distribute goods internally within the single market.

Revenue Loss Risks

Some industry estimates suggest France could lose significant revenue if parcels bypass its ports and logistics infrastructure due to higher fees.

Competitive Disadvantage

Domestic retailers and logistics providers could face higher operational costs compared with businesses operating in countries with aligned EU taxation levels.

Wider European Context

Other EU countries have considered similar measures. Belgium, for example, has explored introducing parcel fees targeting imports from outside the EU, partly to address budget deficits and regulatory enforcement costs.

Meanwhile, the EU-wide push to regulate low-value imports reflects broader concerns:

• Rapid growth of cross-border e-commerce shipments, especially from Asia
  
• Market distortion caused by duty-free thresholds
  
• Consumer safety, counterfeiting, and regulatory compliance issues
  

These factors have accelerated momentum toward coordinated EU policy rather than fragmented national approaches.

Impact on Consumers and Retailers

For consumers, parcel taxes could increase prices on imported low-cost goods. For retailers and marketplaces, the implications include:

• Potential restructuring of logistics networks
  
• Changes in pricing strategies
  
• Greater emphasis on EU-based fulfilment centres
  

These developments may also encourage localisation of supply chains within Europe.

Future Outlook for EU E-Commerce Regulation

The French parcel tax debate highlights a broader trend toward tighter regulation of cross-border e-commerce in Europe. With the EU moving toward harmonised customs rules and the removal of duty exemptions, national initiatives that diverge from EU policy could face resistance from both industry and policymakers.

Ultimately, the balance between protecting European retailers, maintaining competitive logistics hubs, and ensuring fair trade conditions will shape the next phase of EU e-commerce regulation.

The post France Parcel Tax Debate: Impact on E-Commerce Competitiveness in the EU appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

In 2025, Italy is taking a more aggressive stance on VAT enforcement and tax compliance, targeting both domestic and cross-border e-commerce operators. With tax revenue losses mounting and pressure from EU digital market reforms, Italian authorities are increasing scrutiny, imposing new guarantees, and pursuing high-profile investigations—most notably against Amazon.

For online sellers and marketplaces, the message is clear: non-compliance with Italian tax law now carries operational and financial risk. Adapting to the country’s evolving VAT framework is essential for maintaining business continuity and market access.

Key Developments in Italy’s VAT Crackdown

€1.2 Billion VAT Investigation Into Amazon

In early 2025, Italy launched an investigation into Amazon for alleged €1.2 billion in unpaid VAT over multiple years. The total exposure—including penalties and interest—could exceed €3 billion. Authorities allege that the platform facilitated transactions without proper VAT collection or reporting mechanisms for thousands of third-party sellers, many of them foreign.

New Guarantee Rules for Non-EU Sellers

Italy now requires non-EU sellers to appoint a fiscal representative and provide a financial guarantee of €50,000 per registration to maintain inclusion in the VAT Information Exchange System (VIES). This new requirement applies to both B2C and B2B sellers operating through Italian or EU marketplaces.

VIES Deregistration for Non-Compliance

Suppose non-EU sellers fail to submit the required guarantee or designate a qualified fiscal agent. In that case, they face automatic deregistration from VIES—cutting them off from intra-EU tax documentation and compliance networks. This severely impacts fulfillment, customs clearance, and order processing within Italy and the broader EU.

Marketplace Responsibility for VAT Collection

Under Italy’s updated e-commerce tax model, marketplaces may be held liable for VAT collection on behalf of third-party sellers. Platforms must ensure proper invoicing, VAT registration checks, and periodic reporting to avoid secondary liability.

Impact on E-Commerce Operators

For Non-EU Sellers

• Operational Costs Rise: The €50,000 VAT guarantee adds a significant cost barrier, particularly for small and mid-sized exporters.
  
• Compliance Burden Increases: Sellers must work with certified fiscal representatives and meet strict documentation requirements.
  
• Risk of Market Exclusion: Non-compliance may result in blocked sales, customs holds, or deactivation on major platforms.
  

For Marketplaces

• Stronger Auditing Obligations: Platforms must validate seller credentials and ensure automated VAT collection tools are functioning across all seller accounts.
  
• Joint Liability Risks: Failure to enforce tax obligations may result in substantial fines or reputational damage.
  
• Need for Local Tax Expertise: Growing regulatory complexity requires investments in local legal, tax, and compliance teams.
  

Strategic Recommendations for Sellers and Platforms

• Appoint a Qualified Fiscal Representative: Ensure that your representative is recognized by Italian tax authorities and capable of managing ongoing obligations.
  
• Submit the VAT Guarantee Before Deadlines: Italian authorities are enforcing strict timelines in mid-2025. Missing them may jeopardize your entire EU operation.
  
• Implement Real-Time VAT Validation: Platforms should adopt automated systems to cross-check seller VAT numbers and verify invoice status in real-time.
  
• Stay Updated on EU-Wide VAT Trends: Italy's enforcement may preview broader action across other EU states. Align your compliance roadmap with long-term regional changes.
  

Italy’s intensified approach to VAT and tax compliance is redefining the rules for e-commerce across Europe’s third-largest market. From high-profile audits to stringent guarantee rules for non-EU sellers, the regulatory environment is shifting fast. For platforms and cross-border merchants alike, success now depends on proactive compliance, local representation, and deep awareness of fiscal obligations. Those who adapt early will retain access to a high-value, digitally engaged consumer base—those who don’t may find themselves locked out.

The post Intensifying VAT and Tax Compliance Reshapes E-Commerce in Italy appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

A complaint against Apple has been filed by Spotify, claiming that they introduce rules to their App Store that limit innovation and choice on purpose. This is at the expense of the user-friendliness.

Spotify is particularly irritated by Apple’s 30% cut on Premium subscriptions. They, therefore, have to charge customers $12.99 for subscriptions. These subscriptions are completed through the App Store, instead of the standard price of $9.99 via the Spotify website.

If the music streaming agency chooses not to use Apple’s payment system, they will apply experience- and technical limiting restrictions. Limitations such as not integrating Spotify with Apple services (HomePod, Apple Watch, Siri). Other companies have already backed out of the 30% tax, like Netflix. Therefore, it is impossible to purchase movies on the Prime Video App. Instead, customers have to purchase movies or books via their browser. Later, they can synchronise the purchase with their app.

Website

To publicly display Apple’s ‘self-serving behaviour’, Spotify has launched a website. This site functions as a timeline and guide. Guidelines of the iOS App Store in 2011 show how Spotify’s previous proposals have been dismissed by Apple. According to a spokesperson, the European Commission is assessing the complaint under their standard procedures.

The post Spotify filed complaint over 30% app-tax against Apple appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

The Minister of Finance acknowledged that other countries had grappled with taxing e-commerce because companies often lack a physical presence in a country. “We are looking at other ways to apply the tax, perhaps charge a transaction fee,” Larrain said. “Estimates suggest that collecting taxes from the digital economy and digital commerce could bring in several hundred million dollars.”

The post New E-commerce tax for multinationals in Chile appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

It is yet unclear which sellers in concerns, but for now, these merchants are unable to sell their goods. The problem is that they basically import containers from China, stock these goods in Amazon.de warehouses and directly sell to the end-consumer. Even though German demands are clear, do not pay VAT and goods are not exanimated on hazardous substances or other European safety regulations.

On another note: Amazon is currently planning on opening physical stores in Germany, similar to those opened in the USA. It is yet unclear exactly when this will happen.

The post Germany steps up against tax-fraud on Amazon.de appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

The Commission states that Amazon has benefitted from a tax deal granted by the Luxembourg government that allowed the company to reduce its tax bill by €250m from 2006 to 2014. Amazon has been ordered to pay that sum, plus interest, but has so far refused to comply. They state to have paid tax in full accordance with both Luxembourg and the international tax law.

Besides the Amazon case, the Irish government is accounted for the lack of effort in collecting the correct tax owed in regard to the Apple ruling. Ireland is not amused by being threatened with action in the European Court of Justice for failing to collect 13 billion Euros supposedly owed by Apple.

The irony in the Amazon case is that EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker was Luxembourg’s Prime Minister from 1995 up until 2013. During a great deal of that period also served as finance minister too, persisting over the government that made the tax arrangements possible and now heads up the organisation that is condemning the same deals.

The post EU Commission issues Amazon €250m tax bill appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

Why?

The ultimate purpose of VAT/GST is to impose a broad-based tax on final consumption by households. Typically, VAT/GST is collected through a staged process, which means that each business in the supply chain charges VAT/GST to its customer, regardless of whether the customer is a private individual or a business. In that sense, businesses serve as unpaid tax collectors for the government. They pay to the competent tax authorities the VAT/GST which they charged on their supplies and received from their customers. Since it is not the purpose of VAT/GST to tax businesses, VAT/GST systems employ mechanisms for relieving businesses of the burden of the VAT they pay when they acquire goods or services.

Two methods

Basically, there are two methods to achieve a neutral result for businesses. The first one is the so-called “invoice-credit method”. In this methodology, each supplier in a supply chain charges VAT on each of its supplies. This amount is shown on the invoice to the customer. In his turn, the customer can credit that input tax against the output tax charged on his supplies if he is legally a business as well. Then, the customer remits the balance of the input and the output tax to the tax authorities. He receives a refund if there are excess credits.

The second method is the "subtraction method", which is effectively an accounts-based method. However, this method is not used that often as almost all jurisdictions that employ a VAT use the invoice-credit method. As a matter of fact, within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), only Japan uses the subtraction method.

For more information on VAT/GST and other ecommerce related topics, please visit the Online Taxes & VAT topic on EcommerceWiki.

The post The different rules on taxations when trading cross-border appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

2) Forty-five states and the District of Columbia impose a sales tax on retail sales and some services. The five states that do not have a state-wide general sales tax are Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon, although Alaska and Montana do allow localities to charge local sales taxes.

3) Sales tax is not the same as VAT: VAT is applied every time value is added at each stage during the supply chain, whereas sales tax is collected only at the time of the final sale.

4) In Pennsylvania, state and US flags are not subject to tax, but if either is sold with “accessories” (i.e. a pole), the entire purchase becomes taxable.

5) In New York, shower caps  are taxable,  swimming caps are not

If you need more expert knowledge and hands-on advice, please download Avalara’s Whitepaper!

The post 5 things you never knew you wanted to know about…. Sales tax in the USA appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.