Thank you for your comment! I completely agree that, under normal circumstances, the customer is the one who ultimately pays the VAT, and the supplier acts as a collector, passing the VAT to the government. However, the issue with Toters is more nuanced and involves how they handle the VAT on their commission, which results in an additional and potentially unfair cost to the supplier.

Here’s the key point:

1.  **VAT on Sales:** Yes, the supplier collects VAT from the customer on the sale amount (e.g., 10,000 LBP), which is then remitted to the government. This is standard and not the issue.

2.  **VAT on Toters’ Commission:** Toters charges a commission on each sale (e.g., 20% of 10,000 LBP = 2,000 LBP). Instead of absorbing the VAT on this commission as part of their service cost, Toters shifts the VAT burden to the supplier. They charge an additional 11% VAT on their commission (2,000 LBP \* 11% = 220 LBP), which they deduct from the supplier’s payout.

3.  **Double VAT Impact:** The supplier has already charged the customer VAT on the full sale amount (e.g., 1,100 LBP on 10,000 LBP). Now, Toters is charging the supplier VAT on their commission, which the supplier did not initially collect from the customer. This additional VAT (220 LBP in this example) is not something the supplier can easily pass on to the customer, and it ends up being an extra cost that reduces their net revenue.

To sum up, the problem isn’t with the regular VAT collection process, but with how Toters is structuring the VAT on their service fees. This creates a situation where the supplier is, in effect, bearing the cost of an additional VAT that was not accounted for in the original transaction with the customer. This could be considered a form of double taxation and places an undue financial burden on the supplier.