# The OnlyFans Economy: Why the Platform Pays the VAT for Everyone > Fenix International (C-695/20): the platform pays VAT on the fan's whole payment, not on its 20% cut. What is left to the creator: registration, 1099s, DAC7. Author: Dana Berzeg β€” Attorney-at-law, Family Office (https://wiki.private.law/en/authors/berzegova) Last modified: 2026-08-13T14:14:00.000Z Canonical: https://wiki.private.law/en/onlyfans-taxes Topics: investments Jurisdictions: eu, uk, usa, global Product tags: tax-regime, compliance, banking Semantic tags: tax-regime, compliance, banking --- ## The concept: the platform pays the VAT, but on the whole payment rather than on its own cut A subscription platform looks simple from the outside. The fan pays for a subscription, a paid message or a tip; the platform keeps 20%; the rest goes to the creator. The tax question that simplicity conceals is whose service the fan actually bought. If it is the creator's, then the creator has to compute consumer VAT at the rate of each subscriber's country and register wherever those subscribers live. If it is the platform's, consumer VAT is entirely the platform's problem and the creator supplies one service to one customer: the platform itself. EU and UK law chose the second answer, and in an uncompromising form β€” the platform is treated as the supplier to the fan, and the taxable amount is the full sum the fan paid, not the 20% withheld. > πŸ”— **Related** > [Platform withholding at source](https://wiki.private.law/en/platform-withholding) Β· [DAC7: what platforms report about creators](https://wiki.private.law/en/dac7-creators) Β· [The creator's holding company](https://wiki.private.law/en/creator-holdco) Β· [Creator relocation](https://wiki.private.law/en/creator-relocation) For the creator this reframes the whole exercise. There is no VAT to charge fans, no OSS registration for the sake of subscribers in Germany or Spain, no need to track two dozen national rates. In exchange comes a different and much narrower task: documenting the creator's own B2B supply to the platform correctly under the rules of their own jurisdiction, and separately dealing with the income tax side, banking access and automatic exchange of information. What follows is how the construct works in the primary sources, and what it means in practice. ## Fenix International: what the Grand Chamber actually decided The dispute began as an ordinary tax audit. Fenix International Limited, the British company that operates OnlyFans, withheld 20% from fans' payments and accounted for VAT on that commission. HMRC assessed VAT on the entire sum received from fans. The company challenged not so much the computation as the rule underpinning it: Article 9a of Council Implementing Regulation \(EU\) No 282/2011. The First-tier Tribunal \(Tax Chamber\) referred the question to Luxembourg, and on 28 February 2023 the Grand Chamber handed down its [judgment in Case C-695/20 Fenix International Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62020CJ0695). Fenix argued structurally. Article 9a, it said, creates what amounts to an irrebuttable presumption that the platform acts in its own name, strips the parties of contractual freedom and ignores economic reality; on that reading it does not clarify Article 28 of the VAT Directive but amends it, so the Council exceeded the implementing powers conferred by Article 397 of the Directive and Article 291\(2\) TFEU. The Court disagreed. Article 9a merely specifies Article 28, respects its essential objectives and secures uniform application of VAT across the member states. The provision was upheld as valid. The substantive core of the ruling is that contractual characterisation does not override operational reality. Where the platform controls pricing, the payment or the terms on which the service is delivered, it is the supplier in the logic of [Article 28 of Directive 2006/112/EC](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A02006L0112-20250101): a taxable person acting in his own name but on behalf of another is deemed to have received and supplied those services himself. The practical consequence for the whole industry: the taxable amount is everything the consumer paid, not the intermediary's fee. ## The mechanics of Article 9a: three situations where "we are only a shop window" will not be accepted Article 9a was not in the regulation from the start. It was [inserted by Regulation \(EU\) No 1042/2013](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1042) and has applied since 1 January 2015, in step with the move to taxing electronic services where the consumer is located. The construction has three layers. The first layer is the presumption. Where electronically supplied services are provided through a telecommunications network, an interface or a portal such as a marketplace for applications, a taxable person taking part in the supply is presumed to be acting in his own name but on behalf of the provider of those services. The second layer is how to rebut it. The provider must be explicitly indicated as the supplier both in the contractual arrangements and on the paperwork: the invoice issued by each taxable person in the chain must identify the service and its supplier, and so must the invoice or receipt given to the consumer. The third layer is where rebuttal is impossible by definition. A taxable person who authorises the charge to the customer, authorises the delivery of the services, or sets the general terms and conditions of the supply may not designate anyone else as the supplier. The article separately provides that it does not catch persons who only process payments and do not take part in the supply β€” that is precisely where the boundary between a platform and a neobank is drawn. Any subscription platform with its own billing, its own terms of service and its own payout rules falls into the third layer automatically. The UK regime after Brexit reproduces the same logic: [HMRC's guidance](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-vat-rules-if-you-supply-digital-services-to-private-consumers) states that a platform is treated as the supplier where it sets the general terms and conditions, authorises the payment or is responsible for delivery, and that intermediary status is available only where every condition is satisfied at once. > ⚠️ **The standard mistake.** A creator reads "the platform pays the VAT" and concludes "so I have no tax to worry about". C-695/20 settles exactly one question β€” consumer VAT on the fan's payment. It says nothing about the creator's income tax, their own VAT registration in the country of residence, social contributions, or how the money received will be treated by a bank. The mirror-image error is just as common: an EU creator registers for OSS and starts charging VAT to "their subscribers". Subscribers are not their counterparties. There is exactly one counterparty, and it is the platform. ## What is left to the creator: the supply runs to the platform, not to the fan If the platform is the supplier to the fan, then the creator's supply is made to the platform. That is a B2B service, and its place of supply follows the general rule β€” where the customer is established. The operator of OnlyFans is a UK company: [Fenix International Limited](https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10354575), company number 10354575, incorporated on 1 September 2016, registered office 9th Floor 107 Cheapside, London EC2V 6DN. So for an EU creator the customer sits outside the Union, and for a UK creator it sits at home. Every subsequent difference grows out of that fork. ### The United Kingdom A UK-resident creator supplies services to a UK company: a domestic taxable supply at the standard rate. Compulsory registration begins at [Β£90,000 of taxable turnover in the last 12 months](https://www.gov.uk/vat-registration/when-to-register), or where the threshold is expected to be exceeded in the next 30 days alone. Crucially, turnover here means what is due to the creator, not what the fans paid. A creator who crosses the threshold registers, charges VAT to the platform and gains the right to recover input tax on equipment, studio rent and management fees. Below the threshold registration is voluntary and usually unattractive where there is little input-taxed expenditure. ### EU member states The creator's supply is made to a person outside the EU, so the place of supply is not in the Union and no VAT arises. But "no tax" is not the same as "no obligations": several member states require registration and a VAT number in order to supply foreign customers even where nothing is payable, together with periodic returns. The €10,000 threshold is beside the point here β€” [Article 59c of the Directive](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A02006L0112-20250101) concerns cross-border B2C supplies by a supplier established in only one member state, which is exactly the situation Article 9a has removed the creator from. ### Third countries For a creator in the UAE, Georgia, Serbia or TΓΌrkiye, a payout from a British platform is an export of services, zero-rated or outside the scope under the place-of-supply rules in most regimes. Two things need checking: whether the receipts count towards the local VAT registration threshold, and how they are characterised for income tax and social charges. The tax side of the Emirati route is set out in [creators in the UAE](https://wiki.private.law/en/uae-creators). ## Jurisdiction summary: who registers what, and where | Creator's residence | VAT on the fan's payment | Creator's supply to the platform | Creator's registration | Platform's reporting about them | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | United Kingdom | Platform as deemed supplier | Domestic B2B supply, standard rate | Compulsory above Β£90,000 of turnover | SI 2023/817; report to HMRC by 31 January | | EU member state | Platform as deemed supplier | Place of supply outside the EU, no VAT charged | Per national rules; the €10,000 threshold does not apply | DAC7, if the activity qualifies as a personal service | | United States | Platform \(state marketplace facilitator rules\) | Export of services; VAT does not exist as a tax | β€” | Form 1099-NEC or 1099-K, depending on the payout mechanics | | Third country \(UAE, Georgia, Serbia\) | Platform as deemed supplier | Export of services, usually zero-rated | Per local VAT thresholds | Depends on whether the jurisdiction has adopted the OECD model rules | "β€”" means the parameter does not exist in that regime. The table describes the standard construct where the platform operator is British; changing the operator's country of incorporation shifts the second and third columns wholesale. ## The income side in the United States: 1099-K, 1099-NEC and a threshold rewritten twice There is no consumer VAT in the United States, so the creator's entire burden is on the income side. Platform earnings are business income, reported on Schedule C, with self-employment tax on top. The more interesting question is information reporting, which has been rewritten twice in three years. The Form 1099-K threshold, once slated to fall to $600, has been restored to its historic level: third party settlement organisations β€” payment apps and online marketplaces β€” report where gross payments exceed $20,000 **and** the number of transactions exceeds 200. That follows both from the [IRS explanation](https://www.irs.gov/businesses/understanding-your-form-1099-k) and from the [instructions to the form](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099k.pdf). In parallel the Form 1099-NEC threshold has changed: the [instructions for Forms 1099-MISC and 1099-NEC](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099mec.pdf) put it at $2,000 for tax years beginning after 2025, indexed for inflation from 2027, in place of the old $600. One detail matters for keeping the two apart: amounts reportable on a 1099-K are excluded from the 1099-NEC, so the same payout should not surface on both forms. > βš™οΈ **A procedural checklist for the US creator.** 1\) Establish which form the platform files about you β€” a 1099-NEC as the payer of compensation, or a 1099-K as a settlement organisation. 2\) Reconcile the figures on the form against your own payout ledger: the 1099-K shows the gross amount, before commissions, refunds and discounts, so it will always exceed what landed in your account. 3\) Close the gap with expenses on Schedule C, not by "adjusting" revenue. 4\) Remember that the duty to report income does not depend on whether a form ever arrives β€” the IRS repeats this in every release on thresholds. ## Transparency: DAC7, the UK rules and what the platform reports about you The second visibility layer is automatic exchange of information about platform sellers. In the EU that is [Council Directive \(EU\) 2021/514](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A32021L0514): member states had to transpose it by 31 December 2022, and the rules apply to reportable periods from 1 January 2023. The list of "relevant activities" is closed: immovable property rental, sale of goods, rental of any mode of transport, and "personal services" β€” work measured in time or by task, performed at the request of a user, online or physically offline after being facilitated by the platform. There is genuine legal uncertainty here and it is worth naming. An ordinary subscription to a content feed sits awkwardly in the definition of a personal service: it is not performed at the request of a particular user. Bespoke content to order, paid messages and custom videos, by contrast, fit the definition almost word for word. In practice, platforms that run both models through a single payment flow tend to report the whole volume rather than sort it by type. The UK equivalent, the [Platform Operators \(Due Diligence and Reporting Requirements\) Regulations 2023, SI 2023/817](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/817/made), has applied since 1 January 2024; the report goes to HMRC by 31 January following the reportable period, and a copy of the information goes to the seller. A full breakdown of the data transmitted is in [DAC7 for creators](https://wiki.private.law/en/dac7-creators). > πŸ’‘ **The practical takeaway.** The copy of the report the platform must send the seller is the cheapest self-audit tool available. It shows what amount went to a tax administration and under which tax identification. Any divergence between that figure and your return is the first thing that triggers an enquiry, and it is far better closed before the enquiry than after. Check separately which tax residence your profile carries: the platform reports to the jurisdiction stated there, and a "forgotten" old country generates reporting where you no longer live. How to align status on a move is covered in [creator relocation](https://wiki.private.law/en/creator-relocation) and the [primer on UK tax residence](https://wiki.private.law/en/uk-tax-residence). ## The banking layer: de-risking and the 2025–2026 reversal For an adult-content creator the tax problem is usually easier than the banking one. Refusal to open an account, closure of a working one, loss of payment services β€” this is the standard script, and legally it rested not on any prohibition of the activity but on the "reputational risk" category in banking supervision. That lever has now been dismantled in the United States. On 23 June 2025 the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve [announced](https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20250623a.htm) that reputational risk would no longer be a component of examination programmes in its supervision of banks; references to reputation are being removed from supervisory materials, including examination manuals, and replaced by discussion of specific financial risks, with examiners trained to apply the change consistently. On 7 August 2025 came [Executive Order 14331, "Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans"](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/12/2025-15341/guaranteeing-fair-banking-for-all-americans) \(published 12 August 2025, 90 FR 38925\): federal banking regulators must within 180 days strip reputation risk and equivalent concepts out of guidance and examination materials, within 120 days review practices and take remedial action, and the SBA must secure reinstatement of clients unlawfully denied service. The caveat is obligatory. The order is aimed at debanking on political and religious grounds and at refusal of service for "lawful business activities the provider disfavours for political reasons"; it contains no provision directed at adult content. What works for the creator is not the order itself but its side effect: without a reputational risk category, a bank finds it harder to justify a refusal without pointing to a concrete financial or compliance risk. The order's deadlines expired in the first quarter of 2026; as at August 2026 the practice as applied to payment infrastructure for the adult industry is still forming, and the order did not repeal card scheme rules for high-risk merchant categories. Operationally this means separating personal and business flows, keeping platform payouts away from household spending, and assembling evidence of the origin of funds in advance rather than on demand. The practical requirements are set out in [personal accounts](https://wiki.private.law/en/personal-accounts), [source of funds](https://wiki.private.law/en/source-of-funds) and [AML/KYC for the private client](https://wiki.private.law/en/aml-kyc-private-client). ## Scale, and why the operator's numbers matter to the creator The order of magnitude explains why tax administrations take this segment seriously. On the consolidated accounts of Fenix International Limited for the year ended 30 November 2023, group revenue was around $1.3 billion, up 20%; gross payments by fans were around $6.6 billion, up 19%; and UK corporation tax paid ran to roughly $150 million. The revenue split between platform and creators is 20/80. The disclosure position as at 13 August 2026 is worth stating precisely: the most recent published accounts at [Companies House](https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10354575) are the group accounts for the year to 30 November 2024, filed on 27 August 2025; the accounts for the year to 30 November 2025 are due by 31 August 2026 and had not been filed as at publication. Any figures for later periods should be treated as estimates until that filing. Two practical consequences follow for the creator. First, the VAT the platform charges on the fan's whole payment sits economically inside the subscription price, so any rate change in a subscriber's country feeds through either to the price the fan pays or to the base from which the creator's share is computed β€” the mechanics are unpacked in [platform withholding](https://wiki.private.law/en/platform-withholding). Second, the larger and more transparent the operator, the more complete its seller reporting, which makes "nobody can see me" a strategy that does not exist. ## Structuring: what genuinely changes the picture, and what does not The first thing a creator is usually offered is a company. It helps to understand the limits of the effect. A company does not change the VAT construct: the platform remains the supplier to the fan, and the place of supply of the creator-to-platform service is fixed by the customer's residence, not by the creator's legal form. What a company changes is the income layer: the rate, the timing of recognition, the ability to reinvest profit and the shape of the expense base. The available structures are set out in [the creator's holding company](https://wiki.private.law/en/creator-holdco), and the classic personal service company trap, together with the intermediaries legislation, in [PSCs and IR35 for creators](https://wiki.private.law/en/creator-psc-ir35). The second is a change of residence. It genuinely rebuilds the income and reporting picture, but only where the move is real and the old ties are cut: the platform reports on profile data, while the former tax authority applies its own residence tests. A US creator should also remember that citizenship alone preserves the tax nexus regardless of where they live β€” see [US tax residency](https://wiki.private.law/en/us-tax-residency). Russian creators face two additional and self-contained perimeters, and they are worth a line of context for readers elsewhere: Russia regulates content distributors as a licensed information activity and separately polices offshore banking by residents, so a Russian creator earning through a Western platform is exposed to two domestic reporting regimes that have nothing to do with VAT. Those are covered in [the regulation of bloggers](https://wiki.private.law/en/russia-bloggers-regulation) and [foreign account reporting](https://wiki.private.law/en/russia-foreign-account-reporting). The third is the payment route. The choice of payout channel β€” bank transfer, payment aggregator, card β€” determines not the tax but the probability of a freeze and the quality of the documentary trail. Holding the platform's terms of service, payout statements and copies of the seller reports answers most of what a tax authority or a bank will ask. Withholding rates on cross-border payments are tabulated in the [withholding tax](https://wiki.private.law/en/withholding-tax) reference. > πŸ“ The short answer. VAT on the fan's payment is computed and paid by the platform β€” and not on its commission but on the whole sum. That follows directly from Article 9a of Implementing Regulation 282/2011, whose validity the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice confirmed on 28 February 2023 in C-695/20 Fenix International. The creator charges fans no VAT and registers for OSS on their account. The creator's own tax picture is made of three other things: the B2B supply to the platform \(in the UK, taxable at the standard rate with registration from Β£90,000; in the EU, outside the place of supply; in third countries, usually a zero-rated export\), income tax and social charges where they are resident, and the platform's automatic reporting about them β€” DAC7 in the EU, SI 2023/817 in the UK, Forms 1099-K and 1099-NEC in the United States. The banking layer is easing through 2025–2026 as US supervisors abandon the reputational risk category, but the card schemes' rules for the sector and source-of-funds demands have not gone anywhere. ## Questions and answers ### **Does a creator have to register for VAT in the countries where their subscribers live** No. Because the platform is treated as the supplier to the consumer, the creator makes no supplies to fans and has no duty to track where they are. Registration in OSS or in individual member states for the sake of subscribers is unnecessary and simply generates surplus filings. Registration may be needed on an entirely different basis β€” for the creator's own supply to the platform, under the rules of their country of residence. ### **Can the platform shift the VAT onto the creator by contract** Not by contract. Article 9a states expressly that a person who authorises the charge to the customer, authorises the delivery of the service or sets the general terms and conditions of the supply may not designate anyone else as the supplier. That is the part of the presumption no drafting can rebut. The economic burden can of course be distributed differently, through pricing and the base on which the creator's share is calculated, but the duty to compute and pay the tax stays with the platform. ### **A UK creator earns Β£120,000 a year through the platform β€” what now** Turnover is over the Β£90,000 threshold, so VAT registration is compulsory: the service is supplied to a UK company and is taxable at the standard rate. Once registered, the creator charges VAT to the platform and recovers input tax on business costs β€” equipment, rent, contractors. The threshold is measured on the creator's own receipts over a rolling 12 months, not on what fans paid, and the forward-looking test for the next 30 days needs watching too. ### **Does the subscription model fall within DAC7** There is no clean answer. The closed list of relevant activities includes "personal services" β€” work measured in time or by task and performed at the request of a user. Bespoke content to order and paid messages meet that description; an ordinary feed subscription is arguable. In practice platforms running a single payment flow tend to report the entire volume. Plan on the basis that the data is transmitted, and reconcile against the copy of the report the platform must send the seller. ### **Why is the figure on Form 1099-K larger than what was actually received** Because the 1099-K shows the gross amount of reportable transactions, with no deduction for commissions, refunds, discounts or any other withholding β€” that is how the IRS instructions to the form define it. The gap is closed with expenses on Schedule C, not by adjusting revenue. The current reporting threshold is above $20,000 and more than 200 transactions; whether or not a form arrives, the income is reportable. ### **Does moving to the UAE solve the tax question entirely** It solves the income side and leaves the VAT construct untouched: the platform remains the supplier to the fan whatever the creator's residence. A payout from a British platform to a UAE resident is an export of services, usually zero-rated, but two things need checking β€” whether the receipts count towards the local compulsory VAT registration threshold, and how the corporate tax regime applies. And only a real move works: the platform reports on profile data, while the former tax authority applies its own residence tests. > πŸ”— **Related** > [Creators in the UAE](https://wiki.private.law/en/uae-creators) Β· [The O-1B visa for creators](https://wiki.private.law/en/o1b-creators) Β· [The creator's holding company](https://wiki.private.law/en/creator-holdco) Β· [Source of funds](https://wiki.private.law/en/source-of-funds) Β· [Deferred compensation on relocation](https://wiki.private.law/en/deferred-comp-relocation) --- ## FAQ ### Does a creator have to register for VAT in the countries where their subscribers live No. Because the platform is treated as the supplier to the consumer, the creator makes no supplies to fans and has no duty to track where they are. Registration in OSS or in individual member states for the sake of subscribers is unnecessary and simply generates surplus filings. Registration may be needed on an entirely different basis β€” for the creator's own supply to the platform, under the rules of their country of residence. ### Can the platform shift the VAT onto the creator by contract Not by contract. Article 9a states expressly that a person who authorises the charge to the customer, authorises the delivery of the service or sets the general terms and conditions of the supply may not designate anyone else as the supplier. That is the part of the presumption no drafting can rebut. The economic burden can of course be distributed differently, through pricing and the base on which the creator's share is calculated, but the duty to compute and pay the tax stays with the platform. ### Does the subscription model fall within DAC7 There is no clean answer. The closed list of relevant activities includes "personal services" β€” work measured in time or by task and performed at the request of a user. Bespoke content to order and paid messages meet that description; an ordinary feed subscription is arguable. In practice platforms running a single payment flow tend to report the entire volume. Plan on the basis that the data is transmitted, and reconcile against the copy of the report the platform must send the seller. ### Why is the figure on Form 1099-K larger than what was actually received Because the 1099-K shows the gross amount of reportable transactions, with no deduction for commissions, refunds, discounts or any other withholding β€” that is how the IRS instructions to the form define it. The gap is closed with expenses on Schedule C, not by adjusting revenue. The current reporting threshold is above $20,000 and more than 200 transactions; whether or not a form arrives, the income is reportable. ### Does moving to the UAE solve the tax question entirely It solves the income side and leaves the VAT construct untouched: the platform remains the supplier to the fan whatever the creator's residence. A payout from a British platform to a UAE resident is an export of services, usually zero-rated, but two things need checking β€” whether the receipts count towards the local compulsory VAT registration threshold, and how the corporate tax regime applies. And only a real move works: the platform reports on profile data, while the former tax authority applies its own residence tests. --- ## Factual claims - Article 9a was not in the regulation from the start.