A broken 34470A and Keysight's terrible customer service

[Zenith]

She was there for months not years before spinout, but apinout would have happened with or without her.

UK HP employees will remember that period well. Most of us had HP shares, and one moment we had £X, the next £X minus the tax due on the Agilent portion of that £X. Many HMRC inspectors couldn't believe that, but it was true. The split was done in a way that didn't matter in the US, but did in the UK.

About a week before the end of the tax year, it was announced that the tax would be CGT rather than income tax?! Result: most people flogged their Agilent shares pronto, so as not to have a CGT liability. I suspect HMRC and HP had had many behind the scenes conversations.

Platt was clearly out of control. It was too much for him to manage, but apparently he was well thought of when he went to Boeing.

The Agilent spinoff seemed like a good idea at the time, and I think it probably was. Although I thought they should have just called it PH, Packard-Hewlett, and avoided spending millions on a consultancy to contrive a name. It was committted to by the time Kali, the goddess of destruction, arrived on the scene. I doubt she could have changed it even if she wanted to.

The share position was a mess for us in the UK. Long before then I found that it was impossible to find anyone in HMRC who would admit to any knowledge of CGT on shares.

A number of ills can be laid at Carly's door, but the Agilent spinoff isn't one of them.

[voltsandjolts]

wanted some spares. Was told by Keysight that without VAT-ID I could not get any service, support, etc.

I found a buyer for my MSOX3054T and my 2002. Will put up my N6700 and my Logic Analyzer Mainframe as well.

My replacement scope is a R+S, my DMMs are now Fluke or Keithley.
Needless to say, won't be buying Keysight for use at work ...

While I agree with your sentiment, couldn't you use your employers VAT-ID, with permission?

[Saskia]

absolutely not for multiple reasons, many of them being tax laws related.

It's better for me to actually dump my Keysight stuff than to get caught with my pants down.
Needless to say that that's that.

[voltsandjolts]

I was in no way suggesting you commit VAT fraud.

If, like you, I needed Keysight parts, I'd order them, pay with my own card, use my employers VAT number and get them shipped to my work address. Yes, it's a nonsense caused by customer-hostile Keysight policy but it's not illegal, VAT is never reclaimed. It's just a number on the receipt.

[Cerebus]

absolutely not for multiple reasons, many of them being tax laws related.

Yeah, if you're doing it just to make Keysight happy by giving them a VAT number there's a real risk that it's going to look like VAT fraud (particularly if it involves any cross-border transactions). The VAT you paid out privately could appear as VAT paid out by the company which could reduce the companies' apparent VAT liability or even trigger an actual cash refund from the tax authority.

If I wanted to use my own (VAT registered) company to work around Keysight's peculiarities, I'd have to get my company to buy the parts/service from Keysight, then I'd have to buy the parts/service from my own company, shuffle real money around and account for it all before I'd be in the clear with the tax authorities. Just too much trouble. Doing it with an employer's company would be messy, even if they were inclined to help out.

[voltsandjolts]

The VAT you paid out privately could appear as VAT paid out by the company which could reduce the companies' apparent VAT liability or even trigger an actual cash refund from the tax authority.

Curious, how does that work, exactly?

[Saskia]

Cerberus pointed it out quite nicely. no, over here it doesn't work like that. my employer would rather terminate my contract than commit tax fraud which in fact such a transaction you propose would amount to.

So that is definitely a no go. There are alternatives, and I'd rather dump Keysight than put up with their bull.

[Cerebus]

The VAT you paid out privately could appear as VAT paid out by the company which could reduce the companies' apparent VAT liability or even trigger an actual cash refund from the tax authority.

Curious, how does that work, exactly?

Well you privately would pay VAT to the supplier (company Y), for which you don't have to account to anyone. Also you'd be handing over company X's VAT number to company Y, who would record in their books that they received <whatever> VAT from company X (because that's who you've presented yourself as).

One of two things then happen unless you down the full "you purchase + VAT from X, who then purchase + VAT from Y" route.

Company X have to account for their VAT transactions to the tax authorities, to kept their records straight they say that they had to hand out <whatever> VAT to company Y, this amount comes off the bill they owe to the VATman (i.e. amount due to VAT man = VAT on sales - VAT on purchases, hence value added tax) but they didn't actually pay it out - so fraud.

Alternative scenario, company X don't account for the VAT, an audit of X or Y reveals the accounting discrepancy, a charge of failing to properly keep accounts for VAT follows. Under the EU way of doing things, you don't pay VAT for cross border transactions but you do record the value, VAT number and country - the governments then settle up the balance between themselves and it's the audit trail during this reconciliation that is most likely to cause you to come a cropper if there's anything irregular going on.

The only way you can keep it straight is to actually buy the service/part from X and hand over money to X for it, who then actually buy the service/part from Y, and properly account for both the sales and purchase monies and VAT.

My personal company is idling at the moment, which means I have no sales. Thus every quarter I get a VAT refund for all the things the company still has to buy while it's idling, which basically amounts to the VAT on my accountant's fees.