jaytip nsx said:
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Right. He trusted you to bring him the money the next day.
But what's a "loan car agreement" ? (And for what ?)
bodyshop's practical joke
- Thread starter jaytip nsx
- Start date
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Right. He trusted you to bring him the money the next day.
But what's a "loan car agreement" ? (And for what ?)
the loan car agreement was for one of these
I had to sign a form saying that i would return the car in the same condition as it was loaned to me.
He told me my car would be done while i was away for two weeks on vacation,but when i got home he had hardly touched it.my NSX is my daily driver(and i had to have a car for work) so he loaned me the run-about that he uses at his bodyshop for a few weeks,but then asks for it back some weeks before mine was finished,so i ended up hiring a car
I had to sign a form saying that i would return the car in the same condition as it was loaned to me.
He told me my car would be done while i was away for two weeks on vacation,but when i got home he had hardly touched it.my NSX is my daily driver(and i had to have a car for work) so he loaned me the run-about that he uses at his bodyshop for a few weeks,but then asks for it back some weeks before mine was finished,so i ended up hiring a car
i'm not trying to slip a turd into the punchbowl here, but you were willing to do a little "dirty dealin" yourself, to get the paint job done cheaper. now that the deal's gone south on you, you want the government to step in and rectify the situation in your favor. moreover, you're trying to garner sympathy from us.
are you sure you want to admit in court that you paid cash to help your buddy avoid the tax-man?
there are plenty of body shops that won't screw you, if you don't try to screw them. these guys are in business to make money--not a ton of it, but enough to make a living at something they probably enjoy--and we want to keep the good guys in business. they expect to make a reasonable profit, and we should expect to give it to them.
sounds like you got what you paid for--a cheap lesson--take your car to a reputable body shop, pay the correct amount for the job, and get a legitimate receipt. then, if you have complaints, you have recourse, in the courts if necessary.
are you sure you want to admit in court that you paid cash to help your buddy avoid the tax-man?
there are plenty of body shops that won't screw you, if you don't try to screw them. these guys are in business to make money--not a ton of it, but enough to make a living at something they probably enjoy--and we want to keep the good guys in business. they expect to make a reasonable profit, and we should expect to give it to them.
sounds like you got what you paid for--a cheap lesson--take your car to a reputable body shop, pay the correct amount for the job, and get a legitimate receipt. then, if you have complaints, you have recourse, in the courts if necessary.
zomby woof said:
All he would have to say is that the body shop guy said it would be $X.-- if he paid cash. "Sexy" doesn't have to go into why he quoted a cash price. He could, however, admit to that in court because it's not "Sexy" that is doing the tax evation, it's the piece of shit body shop guy. :biggrin:
have you not heard the expression"you scratch my back,and i'll scratch yours"zomby woof said:
i paid to have a good job done,regardless of price.the job did cost me £1,300($2450)should have been $3,000 but he scrimped on the paint.
He did the job,he didn't do it right.i took the car back to him and told him i would pay for more paint and lacquer but that wasn't enough for him.he wanted me to pay him to re-spray it again,which i wasn't going to do.
It was a proffessional dispute right up until he filled out the bullsh!t invoice(2 MONTHS AFTER I HAD THE CAR BACK) for £2,300 more than we agreed,therby calling me in so many words a thief by saying i owe him money that i don't.
That makes it personal and i will re-mortgage my house if i have to,to see that piece of shit get what he deserves.
you state that i want the government to step in and rectify the problem,no such luck.this is going through a small claims court and i am paying for everything.my last date in court which was adjourned cost me £700,most of which i cant claim back even if i win,and i have got to spend the same again next time i go to court.but i don't care what it costs me,i have never stolen a thing in my life(except maybe a girls viginity when i was young :biggrin: ) and i am not going to let him make me out to be a thief.
As for standing up in court and saying it was cash in hand,no problem.i have already put it in my statement that it was cash in hand.
I don't see any problem from Jaytip's angle in the cash & lower cost situation - if the bodyshop guy decided that he needed to make £1300 in his pocket from this job to make it worth his while doing he needs to weigh up the fact that before he can take that £1300 out of the business and put it into his pocket he'll have to gross it up to £2167 in order that the government get the 40% tax they require on his gross earnings (£2167 X 40% = £867 tax, leaving £1300 earnings for bodyshop guy).
but before he can take the £2167 gross earnings out of the business, the business needs to make this money after corporation tax, which is at 20% in this country, so it has to gross up again to £2709 in order to still be left with the £2167 after corporation tax (£2709 x 20% = £542 tax, leaving £2167 for the bodyshop)
but before he can pass this cost on to the customer he is obliged to collect VAT (value added tax) at 17.5% on behalf of the government on top of the sale price, so again the £2709 is grossed up to £3284 (£3284 x 17.5% = £575 tax, leaving £2709 for the bodyshop)
so now the 2 relevant figures are at hand for Mr bodyshop guy to ponder:
in order to pocket the £1300 he has decided is right for this job he can go the legitimate route and charge the customer £3284 OR go the illegitimate route and charge the customer £1300 - a discount from the customer's viewpoint of 60% (or to put it another way, the 'legit' option is 2 and a half times the cost of the cash option)
so having pondered the situation taking into account:
what do I know about this customer?
can the customer afford the 'legit' price
is the customer prepared to pay the 'legit' price
are there other bodyshops nearby who will take on this work at a lower price (legit or not)
if I stick to 'legit' will I lose the customer
if the bodyshop guy decides he would rather take the risks associated with tax evasion and offer to do the job for £1300 rather than risk losing the job to a rival bodyshop, then that is entirely his chioice, and his crime and whether Jaytip knew bodyshopy guy would be avoiding paying the taxes he is obliged to under this transaction or not, he is still not the one committing the crime.
now that is out of the way, consider this:
irrespective of whether the seller (bodyshop guy) is a business registered for VAT, corporation tax and PAYE tax OR he is just a bloke offering to do it at the weekend there is no difference to the deal that went sour.
a price was agreed for the job, the job was done, but clearly not satisfactorily (to any reasonable person) hence the work needs to be rectified before payment can reasonably be expected.
unforunately in this case, the faulty workmanship was not noticed until the job was viewed in the correct light (perhaps the collection/payment venue was engineered to ensure this would be the case?) resulting in payment being made prior to the realisation of the problem.
so Jaytip has every right to demand that it is sorted out, and seems to have been more reasonable than many folks may have been under the circumstances, by offereing to cover the cost of the materials required to make it right.
the response by bodyshop guy actually beggars belief - he has produced a completely fictional invoice for another job that was never tendered for nor done (or for the pedants, the same job over again having already done and received payment for the first time) and is enforcing payment for this through the courts.
how would you react if a business tried to invoice you for a job you hadn't requested or had done and then tried to enforce it through the courts?
if bodyshop guy gets away with this then perhaps I have hit upon a new career - fictional invoice enforcement here I come!
(sorry for the long post!!)
but before he can take the £2167 gross earnings out of the business, the business needs to make this money after corporation tax, which is at 20% in this country, so it has to gross up again to £2709 in order to still be left with the £2167 after corporation tax (£2709 x 20% = £542 tax, leaving £2167 for the bodyshop)
but before he can pass this cost on to the customer he is obliged to collect VAT (value added tax) at 17.5% on behalf of the government on top of the sale price, so again the £2709 is grossed up to £3284 (£3284 x 17.5% = £575 tax, leaving £2709 for the bodyshop)
so now the 2 relevant figures are at hand for Mr bodyshop guy to ponder:
in order to pocket the £1300 he has decided is right for this job he can go the legitimate route and charge the customer £3284 OR go the illegitimate route and charge the customer £1300 - a discount from the customer's viewpoint of 60% (or to put it another way, the 'legit' option is 2 and a half times the cost of the cash option)
so having pondered the situation taking into account:
what do I know about this customer?
can the customer afford the 'legit' price
is the customer prepared to pay the 'legit' price
are there other bodyshops nearby who will take on this work at a lower price (legit or not)
if I stick to 'legit' will I lose the customer
if the bodyshop guy decides he would rather take the risks associated with tax evasion and offer to do the job for £1300 rather than risk losing the job to a rival bodyshop, then that is entirely his chioice, and his crime and whether Jaytip knew bodyshopy guy would be avoiding paying the taxes he is obliged to under this transaction or not, he is still not the one committing the crime.
now that is out of the way, consider this:
irrespective of whether the seller (bodyshop guy) is a business registered for VAT, corporation tax and PAYE tax OR he is just a bloke offering to do it at the weekend there is no difference to the deal that went sour.
a price was agreed for the job, the job was done, but clearly not satisfactorily (to any reasonable person) hence the work needs to be rectified before payment can reasonably be expected.
unforunately in this case, the faulty workmanship was not noticed until the job was viewed in the correct light (perhaps the collection/payment venue was engineered to ensure this would be the case?) resulting in payment being made prior to the realisation of the problem.
so Jaytip has every right to demand that it is sorted out, and seems to have been more reasonable than many folks may have been under the circumstances, by offereing to cover the cost of the materials required to make it right.
the response by bodyshop guy actually beggars belief - he has produced a completely fictional invoice for another job that was never tendered for nor done (or for the pedants, the same job over again having already done and received payment for the first time) and is enforcing payment for this through the courts.
how would you react if a business tried to invoice you for a job you hadn't requested or had done and then tried to enforce it through the courts?
if bodyshop guy gets away with this then perhaps I have hit upon a new career - fictional invoice enforcement here I come!
(sorry for the long post!!)
zomby woof said:
You know what ? .............................. Never mind. Not worth it.
Well, maybe a little......
Yes you are.
He didn't "screw the bodyshop".
If the bodyshop didn't like the terms of the deal it would have simply said "No". The fact that the bodyshop accepted the deal means the customer has every right to have it done correctly.
End of story. (Now take that turd of yours and...........
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: )
NSX-GUY said:
Wouldn't the fact the guy is sueing him for non-payment be a clue (and admission) that the car had been in his shop? :wink:
NSX-GUY said:
True.. But I had to reply anyway. Hehehe :biggrin:
Last edited:
you're right, it's not worth it.
zomby woof said:
i'm with woof.
you wanted to "save money" (hey, who doesn't?) and you ended up holding the short end of the stick. bummer. then you posted on a public forum that you were paying under the table to short the govt a few pounds. double bummer.
this sounds an awful lot like natural selection to me:
"The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated."
fwiw, i learned a lonnnng time ago that we usually get what we pay for, one way or the other. i think that happened here.
Agreed,but if you read one of my earlier posts,i went to this guy because he was RECOMMENDED to me by a sprayer from ANOTHER bodyshop,not because he was cheap.the fact that he was willing to do it off the books was a bonus to me(or so i thought :frown: )queenlives said:
If the guy was going to charge me double the money,he was still going to get my business simply because of the recommendation.
queenlives said:
a few pounds? since when has almost 2000 been a few?
thats equivalent to over $3,700 USD that mr bodyshop was prepared to stiff the taxman for
what are you gonna do if a vendor says
'listen, I gotta whack an extra £1984/$3790 on top of the bottom line cost of £1300/$2483 to pay to the govt in taxes bringing the job to £3284/$6273, but if you can pay me in cash we'll forget about the taxes and just call it £1300/$2483'
I challenge you to take the moral high ground and say to the guy
'I appreciate your offer, but I'd rather not be a party to your proposed tax avoidance and I'll pay the full $6273 by check to ensure the govt gets their share thank you'
get real
ctrlaltdelboy said:
a few pounds? since when has almost 2000 been a few?
thats equivalent to over $3,700 USD that mr bodyshop was prepared to stiff the taxman for
what are you gonna do if a vendor says
'listen, I gotta whack an extra £1984/$3790 on top of the bottom line cost of £1300/$2483 to pay to the govt in taxes bringing the job to £3284/$6273, but if you can pay me in cash we'll forget about the taxes and just call it £1300/$2483'
I challenge you to take the moral high ground and say to the guy
'I appreciate your offer, but I'd rather not be a party to your proposed tax avoidance and I'll pay the full $6273 by check to ensure the govt gets their share thank you'
get real
Are you implying that you WOULD have taken the "moral high ground" and paid 150% MORE than the guy suggested ???
(Just curious)
queenlives said:
"Natural selection" or not he probably paid MORE than the bodyshop normally would have netted on the transaction. That is USUALLY why vendors will do a cash deal.
If the bodyshop was only going to net the same as if the deal WAS on the books, what would be his benefit ?
i.e. Vendor normally charges $3,000, nets, say $1,500 and wants $2250 CASH. HE makes 50% more, YOU PAY 25% less. BOTH of you make out on the deal. It's called win-win (only the Gov't "loses")
That being the (probable(?)) case, the customer paid MORE than the job was actually worth to the vendor and really got screwed..... Big-time ! I know *I'd* be pissed. :wink:
NSX-GUY - nope, I was replying to queenlives' comments.
out of curiosity I re-read your posts above to see whether this cap fitted you too, but it doesn't :wink:
out of curiosity I re-read your posts above to see whether this cap fitted you too, but it doesn't :wink:
I thought cash in hand was illeagal also, won't this weigh in on the case? Good luck anyways
ajnsx said:I thought cash in hand was illeagal also, won't this weigh in on the case? Good luck anyways
Not sure about where you're from but why would paying by "cash" be illegal ?
NSX-GUY said:Not sure about where you're from but why would paying by "cash" be illegal ?
ajnsx is from Australia... the term "paying cash" is used (in Australia) when you want to do a deal which will not go through the books and therefore no tax will be paid and no receipt issued.... Exactly the contract jaytip agreed to. If a tradesman says he will do a job for "cash" everyone in Australia will know (or assumes) that the money is going straight into his wallet and will not go through the books....
So what ajnsx meant was conducting a "cash transaction" in Australia is to be party to tax avoidence... That is the illegal bit
He did not mean that paying with cash is illegal... :wink:
NSX-GUY said:
WOw. 50% net. I know you don't think this illustrative of the margin in a body shop but my God it would be nice. :biggrin:
How he paid, what he paid has really no bearing. The shop HAD to see this before it left, didn't care and still doesn't.
This fellow ought to move on and get the problem solved elsewhere.
He's not going to be satisfied with this shop, who could trust them?
That picture says it all.
PS. Nice picture, I can see sand scratch swelling around the letters. That's another problem.
AU_NSX said:
Gotcha. Thanks. But what do you expect from a country that says "Fair dinkum" and means "OK" !?!?!? :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
I've been to Oz twice. Great place. I love it. Wish I could retire there someday but for a place that was created by importing convicts you guys sure are picky about who you'll let live there nowadays. :wink:
pbassjo said:
*I* KNOW *you* KNOW I was just illistrating the point of win-win for "vendor" and "customer", not describing this particular transaction. :biggrin:
(Hence the use of the generic "vendor" :wink: )
Can you get him for income tax evasion?
Just report him to the IRS-equivalent?
Just report him to the IRS-equivalent?
skinnydoc said:
Would you really want to let yourself in for this kind of grief ?
I'm no lawyer, but first of all, since it WAS a cash deal, and there was NO receipt, he'd have to admit to it in the action that Ryan would bring to court ('cause HE'S not bringing anyone to court).
Secondly, in order to get the bodyshop guy to admit to it in court (which his lawyer woudl NEVER let him admit to in the first place), Ryan would (almost certainly) have to admit his "complicity" in the transaction, thereby getting himself into hot water with the IRS.
Not to mention the fact that the bodyshop guy may not be averse to roughing somone up that really caused him grief........
Who's Ryan?NSX-GUY said:Would you really want to let yourself in for this kind of grief ?
I'm no lawyer, but first of all, since it WAS a cash deal, and there was NO receipt, he'd have to admit to it in the action that Ryan would bring to court ('cause HE'S not bringing anyone to court).
Secondly, in order to get the bodyshop guy to admit to it in court (which his lawyer woudl NEVER let him admit to in the first place), Ryan would (almost certainly) have to admit his "complicity" in the transaction, thereby getting himself into hot water with the IRS.
Not to mention the fact that the bodyshop guy may not be averse to roughing somone up that really caused him grief........
With regard to him roughing me up,I would love him to try and get heavy handed with me.I'm not a bully and i don't condone violence but i have got 13 years of karate and kickboxing behind me with international honors.It would be "interesting" to say the least :biggrin: but i don't want to go down that road,i want to do it the right way.
by the way, apart from the problem that is being discussed here, Ivor's car is actually quite lovely - here's some pics
I'm pretty sure Ivor won't mind me posting these :biggrin:
I'm pretty sure Ivor won't mind me posting these :biggrin:
Similar threads
