Wie durchlaufende Posten richtig händeln?
Guten Morgen zusammen,
ich bin Kleinunternehmer und bin ich jetzt sehr nah an der 22.000 Jahresgrenze.
Grund dafür sind meine “durchlaufenden Posten”.
Folgende Situation:
Ich kaufe für einen Kunden einen Drucker bei Amazon für 200,00€, welche ich auch im Vorfeld bezahle. Die Rechnung von Amazon lasse ich auf den Kunden austellen.
Anschließend führe meine Dienstleistungen vor Ort durch – 100,00€
Nun erstelle ich meine Rechnung an den Kunden:
Pos 1:
Meine Dienstleistungen – 100€
Pos 2 (Auslagen)
Drucker – 200€
Rechnungsumme:
300€
Außerdem hänge ich die Rechnung von Amazon für die Unterlagen des Kundens mit dran. Der Kunde überweist mir 300€, wovon 200€ ein “durchlaufener Posten” ist.
Den Drucker reiche ich 1:1 an den Kunden durch.
Nun stelle ich mir folgende Frage:
Beläuft sich mein Umsatz auf 300€ oder 100€?
(3 votes)
Loading...
Once, Amazon will bill the customer. And then you make the same bill to the customer. It doesn’t work so naturally.
Amazon invoices the customer over the 200 euros. Then the customer must also charge the invoice. Amazon. And you put the bill over 100 euros to the customer. And he’ll give you the 100 euros.
Or you trade with the printer, and I earn something with the trade, that makes special craftsmen.
Printer Purchasing 200 Euro, sale 250 Euro, service 100 Euro, invoice 350 Euro.
Your sales are €300.
The 200 € are operating expenses.
100 € is the profit for income tax.
Is there a possibility not to let the through-run items run into sales, so to keep sales low?
Yeah, let the customer buy the printer himself and not you order him. If you order it, it will be your sales.
That’s right. hmmmm – life could be so easy…
You pay Amazon or not?
But is it a purchase from me when the Amazon Rechung is exhibited on the customer?
The part you quote concerns the EStG and not the UStG. The definition of § 19 para. 1 p. 2 EStG.
In addition, the acquisition m.E. is not a continuous item anyway.
It is crucial that you do not have a duty to forward the price 1:1, but you can also sell the whole accordingly more expensively. If you compare this with the examples, you will also notice that the purchase from the printer is in a completely different direction:
It is noticeable that the passing-through items are just legally defined. Fees of the offices and courts are in corresponding fee regulations. The obligation to dispense pay tax is also regulated in the EStG. The lottery costs set in the gambling state contract.
You do not have a penetrating item, but a purchase and subsequent resale. There is no legal obligation that you have to order something from Amazon.
Here I read at least something else / or do not understand:
https://www.fastbill.com/lexikon/vergent-posten#1
No. If you hire the service, it’s your sales for the service of yours, even if you don’t get any profit.
Yeah, I could. But then in my eyes it wouldn’t be a continuous post. Continuous post is called +-0 for me and I only act as a middleman. Is there a way I can take over the order and payment without affecting sales? Do not want to take away the service of the order
Because the law so provides. Theoretically, you can order the printer for €200 and sell it for €250 and would also achieve a profit with corresponding sales on sale.
Buying goods and selling (possibly more expensive) is the central point of a trader.
I understand everything. But somehow I lack the understanding. Why is it going into my sales when it’s a continuous item I’m going through 1:1 and the invoice is issued to the customer. Not to be regarded as an attack – it just wants to understand:)
Then the customer should also get the invoice from Amazon and pay directly.
An invoice to another recipient has lost nothing in your accounting.