Sales Tax (Page 2): 👍👍...

Diocletian

Bazbo wrote:

I agree. Sales taxes are the most regressive in our system. European style VATs are a little better but not much.

The suit was brought by a state that has no income tax and is heavily reliant on sales tax revenue. Sales taxes are much easier to pass politically than income taxes precisely because they disproportionally affect the poor.

Some states try to make sales taxes a little less regressive by exempting things like food. But they are regressive nonetheless.

👍👍

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

warrior wrote:

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on Collecting of Sales Tax. Does this mean If I purchase a item from a state that has a lower rate than mine collects my state rate?

It would be the sales tax of the state to which the item was sold. Obviously, those of us who live in states with lower sales taxes will be less affected than those of us who live in states with very high sales tax like New York or New Jersey. Additionally, many local municipalities also charge a sales tax on top of the state tax, as an example New York City. I wonder if those additional local taxes are also effectively addressed by this ruling.

1Feathercrest Loc: NEPA

flyguy wrote:

I've always wondered why I should pay a tax for the privilege of buying something --- I think it's a crazy idea and counterproductive to having an expanding economy. It a regressive tax because it effects the lower income groups the most and people have less money to spend on other goods and services, to save, and to invest.

because it "affects" the lower..... "Affect" is an action, something being done while "effect" is the result.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

d3200prime, does the decision let Kentucky tax an online (or mail order) business in Oregon? How can they collect it? How could they even know about it without probable cause to search? And does Kentucky have any lawful jurisdiction there?

d3200prime wrote:

The SCOTUS ruling allows states (at their discretion) to collect sales tax from online businesses. If the citizens of a particular state do not want this in their state then they should make it known to their elected officials. Public opinion is a very powerful influence in political policymaking.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

warrior wrote:

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on Collecting of Sales Tax. Does this mean If I purchase a item from a state that has a lower rate than mine collects my state rate?

We have to see how it is implemented and enforced, which isn't yet clear. In my wife's experience as a dealer in antique jewelry, she needs to collect sales tax according to the point of sale, state, county, city, and so on. When selling locally, she charges local sales tax, reports it, and pays it. If she does a show in another state or location she has to charge the local sales tax for that jurisdiction. Up until now internet sales have not been taxable, and sales to other accredited resellers have been non-taxable. I've been doing the tax reporting for her.

I would speculate that the tax would be based upon the location of the sale, but I do not think we have enough information yet, not do we have information on any exemptions as a result of business revenue, number of transactions and so on. It's going to be complicated.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Charles 46277 wrote:

d3200prime, does the decision let Kentucky tax an online (or mail order) business in Oregon? How can they collect it? How could they even know about it without probable cause to search? And does Kentucky have any lawful jurisdiction there?

That of course is an interesting question. I live in New Jersey and if I order an item from a different state and they don't charge me sales tax, how will the state of New Jersey know? Enforcement may be an issue. Of course, legally, it is my obligation to pay the sales tax in New Jersey for things that I purchased online if the seller does not collect them for me. I think few online purchasers actually ever pay those taxes of course, but legally we are obligated to do that.

I suspect it will take quite some time before this ruling modifies the online landscape significantly. After all, this ruling is not a law. And I suspect there will be no federal law regarding this. It is up to the states to figure out how they will make sure taxes are collected from online purchases.

d3200prime

Charles 46277 wrote:

Warrior, jurisprudence and politics aside, I wonde... (show quote)

As to how this will be accomplished: believe me, where there is a will there is a way. I purchased a piece of furniture in TN and the company had it delivered to my home in Alabama. I was charged sales tax at the TN rate. Each state regulates their sales tax. It is what it is. Just wondering: do you have to go to TN to buy groceries?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

mwsilvers wrote:

It would be the sales tax of the state to which the item was sold. Obviously, those of us who live in states with lower sales taxes will be less affected than those of us who live in states with very high sales tax like New York or New Jersey. Additionally, many local municipalities also charge a sales tax on top of the state tax, as an example New York City. I wonder if those additional local taxes are also effectively addressed by this ruling.

Are you sure about that? The location "to which" the item is sold, or the location "from which" the item is sold? Currently brick and mortar stores or even temporary shows charge sales tax according to where they are located, not where the customer is located. Internet sales get a little more complex if your business has multiple locations.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

warrior wrote:

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on Collecting of Sales Tax. Does this mean If I purchase a item from a state that has a lower rate than mine collects my state rate?

Tax is collected based on the point of delivery, not on the point of sale. I pay California sales tax on all Amazon purchases.

Bill_de Loc: US

Toby wrote:

I am disappointed. This is a money grab for the states. If the company you are buying from has no state located facilities what is the justification for the tax?

It was never the business that was being taxed, it was the consumer. The business is just collecting it and passing it on. As we have seen in this thread alone, if it was left up to the consumer the state would never get a lot of what was owed.

Years back, in NY, sales tax was submitted quarterly. The business was allowed to hold the money in an interest bearing account. The interest was supposed to be a token payment for doing the work. I believe it was in the '70s they switched payments to monthly if sales exceeded a certain amount.

States have the right to tax. The Supreme Court just confirmed that taxing out of state sales did not violate the Constitution. At the root of it all, the Constitution should be the basis for all their decisions.

--

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

Tax is collected based on the point of delivery, not on the point of sale. I pay California sales tax on all Amazon purchases.

Are you sure? Amazon has many California points of sale / physical presence / dispatch locations.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Toby wrote:

I am disappointed. This is a money grab for the states. If the company you are buying from has no state located facilities what is the justification for the tax? It costs the state nothing except for transportation of the merchandise and that is what gasoline taxes are for. I hear one politician say it would level the playing field. Is that the job of the government? If so I want a tax on every cell phone that takes a picture.

Gasoline taxes are for road and transportation infrastructure repair. Sales tax revenue goes directly into the State's general fund. The level the playing field is directed at companies like Amazon, Wayfarer, Y-Lighting, Overstock and Newegg, who put local brick and mortar retailers at a disadvantage when competing against no tax on line retailers.

The 1992, Quill Corporation v. North Dakota ruling was estimated to cost States $33 billion in yearly lost tax revenue when it exempted on line resellers. South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc., puts this right.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Peterff wrote:

Are you sure about that? The location "to which" the item is sold, or the location "from which" the item is sold? Currently brick and mortar stores or even temporary shows charge sales tax according to where they are located, not where the customer is located. Internet sales get a little more complex if your business has multiple locations.

That is an interesting question. When I purchase from Amazon or B&H I am charged New Jersey sales tax, but both Amazon and B&H have a presence in New Jersey. However, in my experience, when purchasing from other other online vendors, without a physical New Jersey presence, when they charge me sales tax it tends to be at the New Jersey rate and sometimes specifically indicates New Jersey sales tax. Of course, who knows if those vendors actually pay the sales tax to New Jersey. They very well may have just kept it for themselves as extra profit.

Diocletian

Peterff wrote:

Are you sure about that? The location "to which" the item is sold, or the location "from which" the item is sold? Currently brick and mortar stores or even temporary shows charge sales tax according to where they are located, not where the customer is located. Internet sales get a little more complex if your business has multiple locations.

Depends on how state sales tax laws are written. Sometimes it depends on where the item is delivered. I had a client in Los Angeles who paid sales taxes to a number of cities and counties based on where the product was delivered. The order was taken in LA the item was shipped out of LA but delivered to San Francisco....so the city of SF wanted sales taxes, the county wanted sales taxes....and on top of that BART wanted some too!

I'm pretty sure each state is going to be different. So if anybody is truly concerned they should read through the state sales tax laws in their own state.

This is, as I'm sure you've realized, primarily directed at Amazon. So I don't think the guy selling an occasional camera lens to a budy is going to be affected...at least not in the short term.

Long term, when our tvs are monitoring us in our homes (for our own protection, of course) it might change.

Bill_de Loc: US

Peterff wrote:

Are you sure about that? The location "to which" the item is sold, or the location "from which" the item is sold? Currently brick and mortar stores or even temporary shows charge sales tax according to where they are located, not where the customer is located. Internet sales get a little more complex if your business has multiple locations.

Brick and mortar sales are usually completed in that location. If the item is shipped, the receiving address is where the sale is completed. There was a big scandal in the art business in NY years ago. Expensive art was being sold. The galleries would ship empty boxes to a tax free state and the customer walked out the door with the purchase. Since the sale was completed in NYC, they were due the tax. I only got to read about because it was front page news. A whole bunch of people went to jail.

--