Online fees and VAT rate

Indicating "other" is not cheating.
It would be a fraud not to pay VAT if it was due.
In addition, he purchases the service outside Poland and the service is also outside Poland. So in my opinion Polish VAT is not due here.

Matuzalem wrote:

I don't think that's right, Mr Atom1477.
"Fraud" can be argued about, but if someone uses a false location, what difference does it make if it is considered fraud, deception, or untruth? The meaning is always the same.

So that incorrect application is not punished.
It is punishable to give untruth to state authorities, the police, etc.
Not to state untruths in civil relations. Well, unless such a provision is included in the civil contract.

As for the other things, as you say, there are different variables. But in this case, it cannot be considered that the location from Poland is correct. Because it is not known what this location is about. If the indication of the user's location for tax purposes, then yes. But if it has a different purpose then no.
After all, the service can be purchased in another country and used in Poland.
People go to Germany and buy washing powders that way. When they return to Poland, they do not convert VAT into Poland. Such miracles only on the border of the EU - non-EU (and more precisely probably Shengen - non-Shengen).
It is not the purchase of physical goods abroad, which then comes in a package to Poland.
Here the purchase is abroad, and the goods stay abroad. You buy space, transfer and processing power of the server, and that space, transfer and processing power stay where they are.
So charging Polish VAT just because you were in Poland at the time of purchasing the service is pointless (although that's how officials would probably interpret it).
In my opinion, the VAT of the place of service provision, i.e. the location of the VPN server, should apply here (because this is where the service is provided, even if we connect to it from Poland (I explained why above)). So I guess Norwegian. I don't know if there are any special VAT rules here. Because Norway is not in the EU, but is in the Schengen area.

The easiest way is to see the regulations for the provision of VPN services in this company and see if they do not require telling the truth there
Then, despite the fact that VAT will probably not be for the country you need, but it will be in accordance with the company's regulations.

Matuzalem wrote:

Again, I don't think you want to notice that what you wrote cannot be "separated" from the context. Since the effect of "providing an untruth" on the seller's/supplier's form is/is to be tax evasion, this ...

That `s nothing.
Evasion from the tax obligation is punishable. Not a misstatement per se.

Matuzalem wrote:

By the way - I didn't know that without the appropriate clause "in the civil contract" I can freely manipulate the facts: not Sasha, but Grisha; not a car, but a bicycle; not in Moscow but in St. Petersburg and did not win and they stole (from him) without any effect on its validity.

Not for the effects of validity, but for the effects of punishability.

Matuzalem wrote:

The fact - if I try hard, it will be important, because the buyer will not find me, but I don't think that's what "importance" is about, right?

As above: I am talking about punishability, not validity.

Matuzalem wrote:

In addition to the unknown elements that you mentioned, there are others - the plural is used intentionally - so I suggest that if the supplier makes the selling price (components) dependent on the country of destination, it is anchored in one - at least one - of these unknown data ( please note that some - i.e. other than zero - VAT rate occurs in the case of choosing a country such as Malta, Luxembourg, Lithuania or Portugal, so let me limit the list to a few EU countries. you take into account.

But what have I not considered here? This still does not prove that the state is for tax purposes.

also wrote:

Matuzalem wrote:

By the way, if someone wants - for a little over PLN 100 of dubious savings - to feel the thrill of emotions for 5 years (they will find it - they will not find it), then maybe there is really nothing to discourage them from it?

Who and how will check that he is a Pole in the POLIN country?

It doesn't matter that he is Polish. Polish VAT is paid not because you are Polish, but because the transaction is in Poland. A non-Polish citizen in Poland will pay Polish VAT in accordance with the law. A Pole but not in Poland will not pay Polish VAT in accordance with the law.
Here, the only criterion to be checked would be the place of the transaction. And possibly the place of use of the purchased product.

also wrote:

atom1477 wrote:

Polish VAT is paid not because you are Polish, but because the transaction is in Poland.

Not true. I can make a transfer from any country because what matters is where the purchase contract was concluded If it were as you write, it would be a crime to buy German washing powder, which has a lower VAT than in the POLIN country.

Why would it be a crime to buy powder in Germany?
If it mattered where the purchase contract was concluded, Germany would matter. So the payment of German VAT would be legal.

yogi009 wrote:

In many countries in the world, there is no VAT and despite this, societies function and people have money to buy food and clothes. So much for the topic.

Rather:
In many countries there is no VAT and yet these countries function.
Because VAT serves the state, not citizens. The lack of VAT therefore harms the countries (the term "harms" is very stretched, because it is not "damage" but only a lack of profit).

also wrote:

atom1477 wrote:

Since would count matter where the purchase contract was concluded, Germany would count. So the payment of German VAT would be legal.

If you're right, don't be fooled. The guest buys a VPN from a foreign IP (some tax haven) and declares it as such. He does transactions with PL and that's about it. In accordance with the law, according to (logs), the purchase was made from abroad from a tax haven

I didn't prove you right. But I didn't say you were wrong either.
I wrote would count. It was a guess.