Ghery Loc: Olympia, WA

Oregon has an income tax. If I were going to more there I would have done so 3 1/2 years ago when my employer at the time wanted me to move. I retired, instead. Now, I haven't bought anything from the vendor in question in a while, so this situation may have changed. Washington has always wanted a person to pay their tax if they bought something in Oregon, but has had no realistic way to enforce the law. SCOTUS has changed this, perhaps?

10MPlayer Loc: California

It's been the law to collect sales tax on Internet sales in California for many years. I'm surprised NY is just now catching up. How could a high tax state like NY miss an opportunity to get more money out of us?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

In 1992, North Dakota brought a lawsuit against Quill Corp - a mail order office products and supplies company. At that time, there was little interstate commerce based on internet sales. Amazon didn't get established until 1999, PC's Limited was nascent, still looking for it's retail niche, and was having little success selling through traditional retail channels like big box stores and computer stores - Michael Dell was still in college when he started the company, which later dropped the dba and rebranded itself as Dell Computers Inc. in 1990, and began to sell direct to the consumer from it's website. At this point there were just a handful of companies doing this.

SCOTUS determined that by merely having an 800 number, sales flyers, a catalog etc in a state did not constitute a physical nexus, and unless the company had warehousing, a brick and mortar retail store, or a business office in a state, the state had no physical nexus and was not required to register as a business in that state and report/collect sales (use) taxes. The court cited the Commerce clause as giving the fed govt the "power to regulate interstate commerce" and to establish when and how taxes could be collected on interstate sales. They required that a company have a physical nexus in a state before the state could require the company to report and collect taxes on it's behalf, and that Quill Corp did not pass that criteria. N Dakota was hoping to recover 3 yrs worth of uncollected - as they argued - taxes on sales made to it's residents. They lost.

In June 2018 SCOTUS reversed the decision in N Dakota vs Quill by saying that an economic nexus -aka an out of state company conducting substantial, direct sales to companies and consumers in a state was sufficient grounds for a state to require business registration, reporting and collecting sales (use) tax.

Whether a state does this or not is entirely within the purview of the state - as the fed govt is not regulating this anymore. The decision of which companies must register, report and collect tax rests entirely with the state.

All SCOTUS has done with the new ruling is open the door to allow, in your case, Washington to require a company in Oregon - which meets a threshold for sales dollar volume and quantity - register, report and collect local use tax. because it is, as you have observed, impossible for Washington to identify and collect use tax from it's residents.

This document, from 2009 shows how absurd the Washington State use tax is - especially where it requires that you self-report and pay a use tax on goods purchased out of state.

http://www.nmsd.wednet.edu/userfiles/-12/My%20Files/Business%20Forms/Accounts%20Payable%20&%20Purchasing/Use%20Tax%20Guidelines.pdf?id=901

This more or less shows the current state of things and how it might affect you:

https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/article/12428982/supreme-courts-wayfair-decision-how-states-and-sellers-are-reacting-to-new-sales-tax-rules

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I am not sure why you would say this. NYS is not getting any revenue from sales of goods delivered to CA. NYS is not "charging" Californians NYS taxes on goods delivered to CA. What NYS can do now is collect taxes on behalf of CA on goods purchased from NYS companies and delivered to consumers in CA, because CA is now requiring that a NY company register, report and collect taxes on behalf of CA. NY doesn't get a cent out of this deal. When you buy something from B&H, you are charged YOUR local tax rate of 7.5%, not NYC's 8.875% local tax rate.

NY has always and use taxes and now can require a company in CA to register, report and collect NYS taxes for goods purchased and shipped from CA companies to NYS residents.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

This is wrong. You are charged your local USE tax rate, not the tax from the state from which you order.

Shutterbug57

Hopefully that sentence was not written by an educator.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

They are collecting 100% of the sales tax due in the ship to state. It just happens to be exactly $0.00.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Most states have an exemption for public and /or NFP entities. It usually requires purchase by invoice with the exemption information on the form. And if tax is charged by an out of state vendor, just like a use tax to collect taxes that should have been paid, it can be reconciled at the end of the year through the usual tax process.

henryp Loc: New York, NY

Not to split hairs but at this time California does not require out-of-state retailers to collect and remit CA sales tax.

It is correct though that when a NY retailer collects and remits another state's sales tax neither the retailer nor NY state benefit from this by a farthing.