OT Amazon to begin charging state sales tax

[John Doe]

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/InternetSalesTa

They are "not raising taxes" they are "just helping to collect
taxes". There is a big difference...

 

[Paul Drahn]

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/InternetSalesTa

They are "not raising taxes" they are "just helping to collect
taxes". There is a big difference...

Not in Oregon!

Paul

 

[PeterD]

Not in Oregon!

Paul

Not in NH either!

 

[George]

Hmm, here in 'tax-happy' New York State there is a line on the state
tax return where you are 'required' to add in all the state tax that
you did not
pay on 'out of state' purchases.

George H.

PA has had the same self reporting requirement for as long as I can
remember.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

I believe most states have this in their income tax forms. It doesn't cost
anything to put it there but likely gets just about as much in return. Have
you ever put anything there?

PA sends revenue agents into DE and MD to stake out liquor stores for
PA buyers returning to PA.

NY did that 20-30 years ago. They'd send agents to the malls in NJ, about
this time of year, and send "kindly" reminders to everyone with NY plates
parking there. I doubt that it generated any revenue but it did generate a lot
of bad press (can you say Scrooge?).

While back, I recall liquor store owners in MD chasing them out of
their parking lots.

The "Staties" should escort them to the border with a suggestion that they not
return.

 

[Percival P. Cassidy]

Hmm, here in 'tax-happy' New York State there is a line on the state
tax return where you are 'required' to add in all the state tax that
you did not
pay on 'out of state' purchases.

In MI, one is required to report out-of-state purchases in excess of
$1000 (per item). Purchases for lesser amounts may either be itemized if
one has the receipts or else assessed automatically on the basis of the
taxable income (I *think* that's the basis). But one is supposed to pay
only the difference between the sales tax actually paid elsewhere (if
any) and the MI tax. So we don't pay MI "use tax" on the items that we
bought in IL where the tax rate is 8.xx (varies from county to county).

Perce

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Yup, I always put down a little something ~$10-20. All internet
purchases, but less in recent years since I've just been checking the
box on the order form to have the vendor pay my sales tax.
(But remember I'm a liberal weenie, I also pay ~$100 a year extra to
get all my electricity from the local wind farm.)

I guess you make perfect sense. ...to someone.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

These states are missing an opportunity to charge double sales tax.
What *were* they thinking?

SCotUS had something to say about that. They also tried taxing retirement
income in the state where the income was earned. SCotUS took a dim view on
that one, too.

 

[PeterD]

On 11/23/2011 12:11 PM, Notat Home wrote:
ifference...

Years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for
states to collect sales tax on out of state sales. I wonder what has
changed?

What has changed is your understanding of sales tax, the law, and the
ruling by the courts.

 

[Ed Huntress]

"PeterD" wrote in message
On 11/23/2011 12:11 PM, Notat Home wrote:
ifference...

Years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for
states to collect sales tax on out of state sales. I wonder what has
changed?

What has changed is your understanding of sales tax, the law, and the
ruling by the courts.

The Supreme Court did NOT rule it unconstitutional for states to collect
sales taxes on sales made from out-of-state vendors. What the Court did
(Quill v. North Dakota, 1992) was to prevent states from collecting from the
*vendor*. They can still collect from the buyer -- or they can try, which
doesn't work very well. <g>

 

[John Doe]

Notat Home wrote:

What has changed is your understanding of sales tax, the law,
and the ruling by the courts.

And WTF is that supposed to mean?

I'm never going to grow up.

Please grow up at least enough to post coherently.
--

 

[SMS]

Yup, I always put down a little something ~$10-20. All internet
purchases, but less in recent years since I've just been checking the
box on the order form to have the vendor pay my sales tax.

Good for you. It's interesting that people that would not even dream of
sampling a grape at a supermarket, have no qualms about stealing in
other ways, and will often laugh at people that don't break the same
laws they are breaking.

 

[John Doe]

Good for you. It's interesting that people that would not even
dream of sampling a grape at a supermarket, have no qualms about
stealing in other ways, and will often laugh at people that
don't break the same laws they are breaking.

And everyone in your world is so eager to pay taxes, they do not
even have to be told... At least in my state, the state never
tells anyone that they are supposed to pay a "usage" tax on
out-of-state purchases. I seem to recall someone working for the
state telling me that the state has a usage tax but that nobody
pays those taxes.

Another reason for not sampling a grape at the supermarket is
because others might be putting their grubby hands all over the
grapes too.
--

Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com! npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-
me.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!news-xfer.nntp.sonic.net!
posts.news.sonic.net!nnrp1.nntp.sonic.net!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:47:44 -0800
From: SMS <scharf.steven geemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,alt.home.repair,rec.crafts.metalworking
Subject: Re: OT Amazon to begin charging state sales tax
References: <4ecc61a7$0$6552$c3e8da3$b1356c67 news.astraweb.com>

<cf2c4e21-5257-4ebd-9ba0-9cb6fc95ea61 w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
<63342a76-3116-4119-a3a7-cbf9551c7d98 p9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>

In-Reply-To: <954a8321-db7c-4073-93b5-e017965f8420 n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 111123-1, 11/23/2011), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <4ecd4de1$0$1716$742ec2ed news.sonic.net>
Organization: Sonic.Net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Nov 2011 19:47:45 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 37cc7615.news.sonic.net
X-Trace: DXC=F5YL7hoPfiJSnELGIHMg>Om4K\QM1CV^ 1OYf0H`?;XAb;H HW?b?] AOCIU1RcED9H6PJ1_[E<<5GVc9=<oX^o:J
X-Complaints-To: abuse sonic.net

 

[Robert Neville]

What has changed is your understanding of sales tax, the law, and the
ruling by the courts.

Absolutely nothing has changed - the forced collection of sales tax by one state
against a purchase in another state is still unconstitutional. Quiill vs. ND is
still the legal authority and there have been no rulings by any courts that have
reversed this.

What has changed is that states are atttempting to get around the SCOTUS ruling
by stretching the definition of nexus beyond the breaking point, claiming that
"affiliates" and separate legal entities owned by the parent in that state are
sufficient to create a nexus.

In the case of affiliates, Amazon and others have told the states to pound sand
and stopped paying affiliates in those states. In the case of distribution
centers and separate legal entities (read: software development centers), Amazon
has chosen to negotiate collection terms with those states. Fine as far as it
goes.

The legislation that someone referenced earlier in this thread is an attempt to
create a new national sales tax that would be applied to transactions that are
not currently taxed at by states. And if you think it would stay that way, I
have a bridge I'd like to show you.

 

[Percival P. Cassidy]

Absolutely nothing has changed - the forced collection of sales tax by one state
against a purchase in another state is still unconstitutional. Quiill vs. ND is
still the legal authority and there have been no rulings by any courts that have
reversed this.

What has changed is that states are atttempting to get around the SCOTUS ruling
by stretching the definition of nexus beyond the breaking point, claiming that
"affiliates" and separate legal entities owned by the parent in that state are
sufficient to create a nexus.

In the case of affiliates, Amazon and others have told the states to pound sand
and stopped paying affiliates in those states. In the case of distribution
centers and separate legal entities (read: software development centers), Amazon
has chosen to negotiate collection terms with those states. Fine as far as it
goes.

The legislation that someone referenced earlier in this thread is an attempt to
create a new national sales tax that would be applied to transactions that are
not currently taxed at by states. And if you think it would stay that way, I
have a bridge I'd like to show you.

But the tax that Michigan, for example, expects people to pay on
out-of-state purchases is not a "Sales Tax" but a "Use Tax," and I
assume that there is a Michigan law that establishes such a tax.

Perce

 

[Robert Neville]

But the tax that Michigan, for example, expects people to pay on
out-of-state purchases is not a "Sales Tax" but a "Use Tax," and I
assume that there is a Michigan law that establishes such a tax.

Absolutely. But collecting that tax is Michigan's problem, not Amazons when
Amazon doesn't have a presence in Michigan.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

But the tax that Michigan, for example, expects people to pay on
out-of-state purchases is not a "Sales Tax" but a "Use Tax," and I
assume that there is a Michigan law that establishes such a tax.

True enough, but the point being that there is no way to compel ME, or a ME
entity (corporation), to collect a tax for MI. MI *can* (attempt to) collect
the tax from the MI resident. However, that isn't working out so well.

 

[Charlie E.]

Here's another one that may be worse.

My business was audited by the state comptroller's office. The on-site
auditor wanted to see invoices we had generated for our out-of-state sales.
I declined to provide them.

Glad I did.

My tax attorney told me auditors from other states also work in my town and
there's a background communications link between them. Had my state auditor
discovered an invoice to, say, a client in Missouri, she would have snitched
out that fact to the local Missouri auditor. That Missouri auditor, in turn,
would pass on the information to the Missouri comptroller's office. A herd
of people with green eye-shades and sleeve garters would then descend on my
client, demanding to know why he didn't pay the sales tax on an out-of-state
purchase.

In California now, the law has changed. If I sell a unit to a
customer out of state, but SHIP it from California, I MUST charge
California sales taxes on the unit. We double checked on that!!!

Charlie

 

[Martin Riddle]

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/InternetSalesTa

They are "not raising taxes" they are "just helping to collect
taxes". There is a big difference...

begin?

They all ready do charge tax (NYS tax for me)

I rarely order from them now.

Cheers

 

[John Doe]

John Doe wrote:

Years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that it was
unconstitutional for states to collect sales tax on out of state
sales. I wonder what has changed?

After listening to a little bit of the Senate discussion...
Maybe what has changed is the technology for Amazon and others
(over a certain size) to charge the tax and have the tax instantly
credited to the appropriate state. In that way, Amazon will not be
technically collecting the tax because it won't actually receive
the tax, it might not see any benefit like cash flow or whatever.