To expect Airbnb research hotel laws and taxes in every country they operate in seems like an undue burden.
In fact, it's such a burden, that I'm sure Airbnb will support it in a few years time as a way to raise the barriers to entry on their industry.
They do not offer insurance and serve as mediator during disputes.
They do not operate concierge services.
They operate significantly less like a hotel than airbnb.
1) A place where you pay someone to stay overnight.
2) A website that helps people find and pay for #1.
Personally, as a customer, I would like to see them take care of collecting any necessary taxes, so that I can use the service in good conscience. If putting my place up on Airbnb requires me to collect extra cash and figure out how to get it to the city, there is no way I'm doing that.
Edit: Followup. Also, in a recent WSJ article within the past 2 weeks, they discussed Orbitz's (possibly Expedia's) use of tax collection arbitrage to earn extra profits. Basically, Orbitz collects tax on the retail price charged to a customer for booking a website on their hotel room...but Orbitz only pays the hotel the wholesale price, on which the tax is calculated. Orbitz remits the wholesale-based amount to the hotel, which remits the amount to the state. For example: if a room is booked for $120 in a 10% hotel-tax jurisdiction directly through the hotel, the tax would be $12. However, if it is booked through Orbitz for $100,the hotel tax due is the amount Orbitz pays the hotel to book the room, which is usually a reduced/wholesale price of say, $80, resulting in an $8 tax. Orbitz doesn't reduce the tax collected from the customer--it still charges $10, but it keeps $2. Needless to say, this is actually a large source of profits for Orbitz, and for tax reasons actually lets them manage profits by booking a liability for the taxes on the theory they could eventually be liable for remitting the entire $10.
Maybe that was specific to my state, but I would be highly surprised.
I'll have to dig up that WSJ article. It sounds interesting.
The VERY slippery slope this issue leads to is that NYC and San Fran can sink their claws into the hotel taxes, then won't these entities paying the hotel tax suddenly need to be compliant with hotel regulations, for example, fire exits, accessibility, etc as well as commercial insurance requirements, commercial business licensing, etc.
This is a very dangerous road down which we travel. The interesting thing is to look behind this fight. I'm pretty certain that there's a Marriott, Holiday Inn or some other hotel conglomerate "donating" money to certain politicians to put pressure on AirBnb. Much like the large taxi companies put pressure on city governments over Uber.
Put down the organic soy latte and turn down the Vampire Weekend and stop voting for these jackasses! Call their office and tell them -- if you want to apply 20th century paradigms to 21st century innovations, then you aren't qualified to be in office and I'm not voting for you. (Or something to that effect.)
A burden? More like a flagrant abuse of the law. It's hard to believe that Airbnb didn't bother researching the law in San Francisco, the very same city the company was founded in.
Existing laws will be written with hotels in mind. If J. Random Startup went to the city and said, "Hey, we want to try this new thing," at best they'd get ignored. At worst they'd be told they'd have to register each place as a hotel, set up inspections, get necessary permits, and generally slit their own throats.
So strategically, the thing to do is to just ignore the laws, find sufficient technicalities and fig leafs to rebuff government on their first approach, and start the service. If it goes nowhere, then no harm is done. And if, as with Airbnb, it takes off, they're in a much better negotiating position.
Now everybody knows what the service is, and it's easy to see that different laws and regulations will be needed. And regulators can't kill the market off without making a lot of people mad. And the city will end up happy: more capacity to absorb large tourist flows, better experiences for the kinds of visitors that would rather stay in a home than a hotel, more money in the pockets of local citizens. And, of course, soon there will be more tax revenue, too.
I know that there is language in the AirBnB terms that mandate the owner take care of compliance. I wonder what proportion of homeowners that rent through AirBnB (or similar sites like VBRO) are doing so in full compliance with all of the above.
I really hope that's a joke. Why should they be exempt from the law, exactly?
[A hotel is:] A building or part of a building in which, living or sleeping accommodations are used primarily for transient occupancy, and my be rented on a daily basis; one of more common entrances serve all such living or sleeping units; and; twenty-four hour desk service is provided, in addition to one or more of the following services: housekeeping, telephone or bellhop service, or the furnishing or laundering of linens.
If the local hotel laws don't apply to AirBnB in a particular locality, then great! But that doesn't excuse them from finding out, or from conforming to laws in other places that do regulate them.
Well, considering it's their buisness, isn't it a necessary burden?
That's just like saying a hardware manufacturer shouldnt have to research local wireless compliance laws in each country they enter because it's 'too hard'.
You mean like hotel companies that research hotel laws and taxes in every country they operate in?
Just because you are Internet Business you are entitled to not figure out tax laws? Airbnb is Billion Dollar company (Valuation wise) and saying they don't need understand laws of country they operate in insane.
A few years? This seems like confirmation that it's happening now.
I thought it'd lower the barrier of entry.
You cannot say this about AirBnB.