PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS: Online/Internet shoppers can be forced (legally separated) to pay sales tax




aGameOfThrones
06-21-2018, 10:51 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — States will be able to force shoppers to pay sales tax when they make online purchases under a Supreme Court decision Thursday that will leave shoppers with lighter wallets but is a big win for states.

More than 40 states had asked the high court to overrule two, decades-old Supreme Court decisions that they said cost them billions of dollars in lost revenue annually. The decisions made it more difficult for states to collect sales tax on certain online purchases.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed to overturn those decisions in a 5-4 ruling. The cases the court overturned said that if a business was shipping a customer's purchase to a state where the business didn't have a physical presence such as a warehouse or office, the business didn't have to collect the state's sales tax. Customers were generally responsible for paying the sales tax to the state themselves if they weren't charged it, but most didn't realize they owed it and few paid.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the previous decisions were flawed.

"Each year the physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States. These critiques underscore that the physical presence rule, both as first formulated and as applied today, is an incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause," he wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

In addition to being a win for states, the ruling is also a win for large retailers, who argued the physical presence rule was unfair. Large retailers including Apple, Macy's, Target and Walmart, which have brick-and-mortar stores nationwide, already generally collect sales tax from their customers who buy online. That's because they typically have a physical store in whatever state the purchase is being shipped to. Amazon.com, with its network of warehouses, also collects sales tax in every state that charges it, though third party sellers who use the site to sell goods don't have to.

But sellers that only have a physical presence in a single state or a few states have been able to avoid charging customers sales tax when they shipped to addresses outside those states. Online sellers that haven't been charging sales tax on goods shipped to every state range from jewelry website Blue Nile to pet products site Chewy.com to clothing retailer L.L. Bean. Sellers who use eBay and Etsy, which provide platforms for smaller sellers, also haven't been collecting sales tax nationwide.

Under the Supreme Court's decision Thursday, states can pass laws requiring sellers without a physical presence in the state to collect the state's sales tax from customers and send it to the state.

Chief Justice John Roberts and three of his colleagues would have kept the court's previous decisions in place. Roberts wrote that Congress, not the court, should change the rules if necessary.

"Any alteration to those rules with the potential to disrupt the development of such a critical segment of the economy should be undertaken by Congress," Roberts wrote in a dissent joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

The case the court ruled in has to do with a law passed by South Dakota in 2016. South Dakota's governor has said his state has been losing out on an estimated $50 million a year in sales tax that doesn't get collected by out-of-state sellers. Lawmakers in the state, which has no income tax, passed a law designed to directly challenge the Supreme Court's 1992 decision. The law requires out-of-state sellers who do more than $100,000 of business in the state or more than 200 transactions annually with state residents to collect sales tax and turn it over to the state.

South Dakota wanted out-of-state retailers to begin collecting the tax and sued several of them: Overstock.com, electronics retailer Newegg and home goods company Wayfair. The state conceded in court, however, that it could only win by persuading the Supreme Court to do away with its physical presence rule. After the decision was announced, shares in Wayfair and Overstock both fell, with Wayfair down more than 3 percent and Overstock down more than 2 percent.

The Trump administration had urged the justices to side with South Dakota.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rules-states-online-sales-tax-case-142423168--finance.html

dannno
06-21-2018, 10:58 AM
Well that sucks.

oyarde
06-21-2018, 10:59 AM
Why would I not just use brick & mortar stores then ? Pretty much what I do anyway and I can get tax exempt status from most those that I actually buy much from under my farm or the wife's business . Thankfully there is no tax on gold and silver coins in my state so if I wanted to buy that online I am tax exempt .

angelatc
06-21-2018, 11:07 AM
Well that sucks.

Gorsuch sold me out. Damn.

heavenlyboy34
06-21-2018, 11:47 AM
Sellers who use eBay and Etsy, which provide platforms for smaller sellers, also haven't been collecting sales tax nationwide.
Having dabbled in ebay retailing, it would be a royal PITA to make sellers taxmen. :P And taxation is theft. :mad:

angelatc
06-21-2018, 11:55 AM
Having dabbled in ebay retailing, it would be a royal PITA to make sellers taxmen. :P And taxation is theft. :mad:

A lot of the proposals would exempt small sellers who sell B2C, but the eBay and Etsy buyers will all pay.

phill4paul
06-21-2018, 11:56 AM
Having dabbled in ebay retailing, it would be a royal PITA to make sellers taxmen. :P And taxation is theft. :mad:

Instead of hiring revenuers they just force businessmen to do it for them. Business people should sue for state pension and benefits.

Matt Collins
06-21-2018, 12:09 PM
These guys hate freedom, imagine that.... Next time you buy something online there is a good chance it will cost a lot more money:



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/politics/supreme-court-sales-taxes-internet-merchants.html

EBounding
06-21-2018, 12:12 PM
"Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch joined the majority opinion."

We HAFTA vote Trump for JUDGES!

Brian4Liberty
06-21-2018, 12:18 PM
Gorsuch sold me out. Damn.

Yeah, I don't know the details, but Gursuch seems a bit wrong on this. Seems like legislating from the bench, as Roberts says...


Chief Justice John Roberts and three of his colleagues would have kept the court's previous decisions in place. Roberts wrote that Congress, not the court, should change the rules if necessary.

CCTelander
06-21-2018, 12:23 PM
"Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch joined the majority opinion."

We HAFTA vote Trump for JUDGES!


What? You can't feel all the freedom? /s

dannno
06-21-2018, 12:31 PM
"Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch joined the majority opinion."

We HAFTA vote Trump for JUDGES!

Not stoked on this one, Gorsuch will shine through in other very important areas in the future tho - but either way you will save at least 10x more on income taxes than you will spend on internet sales tax (especially since Amazon already charges it for non-third party sellers). So you voting for Trump ended up being a net positive. Good job.

Brian4Liberty
06-21-2018, 12:34 PM
Instead of hiring revenuers they just force businessmen to do it for them. Business people should sue for state pension and benefits.

Business already has to for all employees. SSI, misc. payroll taxes. But at least it is all based upon a single state, if the business is in a single state.

Brian4Liberty
06-21-2018, 12:35 PM
Why would I not just use brick & mortar stores then ? Pretty much what I do anyway and I can get tax exempt status from most those that I actually buy much from under my farm or the wife's business . Thankfully there is no tax on gold and silver coins in my state so if I wanted to buy that online I am tax exempt .

More selection online.

phill4paul
06-21-2018, 12:44 PM
Business already has to for all employees. SSI, misc. payroll taxes. But at least it is all based upon a single state, if the business is in a single state.

Oh, I'm well aware. Which is why I stopped that shit long ago.

Brian4Liberty
06-21-2018, 12:47 PM
Oh, I'm well aware. Which is why I stopped that shit long ago.

Nothing better than doing payroll and writing big checks to the FTB.

devil21
06-21-2018, 01:16 PM
Gorsuch sold me out. Damn.

:snort:

You trust an attorney???

Decision is just another side effect of global dollar standard dying and Uncle Sugar's magic printer drying up. States MUST find other avenues for revenue. Trump forgot to mention that MAGA means switching debt and tax burdens from the federal government over to state and local governments. Sales tax hikes and huge state and local bond referendums coming to a city near you soon.

Crash course in reality:
Lawyers/attorneys work for the bankers, take their oath to the BAR (administered by the sovereign City of London, nestled inside London proper) and their job is to push the economy via court rulings toward whatever the City wants. Watch some Jordan Maxwell videos on banking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a6zJw_6QY

Sonny Tufts
06-21-2018, 01:22 PM
Yeah, I don't know the details, but Gursuch seems a bit wrong on this. Seems like legislating from the bench, as Roberts says...

The Supreme Court created the physical presence test to begin with, and today's opinion simply undoes what the Court did decades ago.

spudea
06-21-2018, 01:28 PM
I believe in fairness, so I'm fine with this ruling, states are going to get their revenue one way or another.

oyarde
06-21-2018, 01:45 PM
Overall I would give everyone an F on this . It will be a large negative in total for economic growth . All of these purchases will not now be made , some will be skipped altogether . People underestimate the laziness of fellow man and just because a guy could use a jack and a lug wrench for his girlfriends trunk it does not mean he will go to the hardware and buy it , before he may have bought it online and it was delivered to his home , but if he lives in Washington , Calif, Tenn etc he may decide he does not want to buy it online and pay the extra 6 bucks in tax on top of the 10 bucks in shipping. No purchase . Our economy is fragile and growth dismal and has been for 11 years . So doing anything to discourage sales and purchases shows a lack of understanding .

Zippyjuan
06-21-2018, 01:49 PM
Having dabbled in ebay retailing, it would be a royal PITA to make sellers taxmen. :P And taxation is theft. :mad:

It will make it more costly for business- they will have to calculate, collect, and remit the various tax rates to all the different states. Lots more bookkeeping for them.

TheTexan
06-21-2018, 02:12 PM
Each year the physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States.

That's horrible. This is a grave injustice, that must be fixed.

TheTexan
06-21-2018, 02:16 PM
For online shopping, the obvious solution is a federal sales tax.

We could even use it to fund UBI, so I don't have to work anymore. Just a thought.

Swordsmyth
06-21-2018, 02:43 PM
Gorsuch sold me out. Damn.


"Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch joined the majority opinion."

We HAFTA vote Trump for JUDGES!

I'll trade this decision for everything Garland would have done to us.

TheTexan
06-21-2018, 02:51 PM
Under the Supreme Court's decision Thursday, states can pass laws requiring sellers without a physical presence in the state to collect the state's sales tax from customers and send it to the state.

I think I'm going to pass a local law that requires sellers without a physical presence near me to collect a sales tax and send it to me :cool:

Brian4Liberty
06-21-2018, 02:57 PM
The Supreme Court created the physical presence test to begin with, and today's opinion simply undoes what the Court did decades ago.

Perhaps. But internet sales are nothing more than technology enabled catalog sales. Did Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Montgomery Ward charge and pay state/local sales taxes everywhere they shipped merchandise?

Zippyjuan
06-21-2018, 06:54 PM
"Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch joined the majority opinion."

We HAFTA vote Trump for JUDGES!

Like Gorsuch?

Swordsmyth
06-21-2018, 07:00 PM
Like Gorsuch?
Like Gorsuch.
He may be wrong here but he is still possibly the best justice on the court and he is light-years better than Garland would have been.

Sonny Tufts
06-21-2018, 07:23 PM
Perhaps. But internet sales are nothing more than technology enabled catalog sales. Did Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Montgomery Ward charge and pay state/local sales taxes everywhere they shipped merchandise?

Sears and Wards had stores in most if not all of the States they shipped to, unlike Amazon, L.L. Bean, and many online sellers. Under the Quill case (which today's decision overturned) that was enough to require them to collect sales taxes on catalog sales.

heavenlyboy34
06-21-2018, 07:52 PM
Instead of hiring revenuers they just force businessmen to do it for them. Business people should sue for state pension and benefits.

+megarep

kpitcher
06-21-2018, 09:55 PM
Gotta love that selling used stuff on ebay will now make me pay tax on it. Double theft!

This is going to get messy fast for an average small online seller to figure out state and local taxes. Large retailers must be loving this

angelatc
06-21-2018, 10:28 PM
I'll trade this decision for everything Garland would have done to us.

Yeah. I just thought he would read the law the same way I did and insist that the Constitution needed to be changed.

devil21
06-21-2018, 10:47 PM
Gotta love that selling used stuff on ebay will now make me pay tax on it. Double theft!

This is going to get messy fast for an average small online seller to figure out state and local taxes. Large retailers must be loving this

Enter Amazon stage left.

"Hey no worries bro, we'll handle all that messy tax stuff for you if you just sell through Amazon exclusively instead."

devil21
06-21-2018, 11:24 PM
For online shopping, the obvious solution is a federal sales tax.

We could even use it to fund UBI, so I don't have to work anymore. Just a thought.

Hey hey, stop reading ahead. We haven't sufficiently fucked up the state sales tax stuff yet to jump straight to offering the solution of a federal sales tax.

Weston White
06-22-2018, 02:00 AM
To me this is an epic failure in logic, noting the following points and concerns:

1. If I physically visit another state or made arrangements through a third-party to make a specified purchase in another state for me and then mail it to me, I would not be taxable for that purchase within my present state of residence; ergo, when I make such a purchase as a matter of personal convenience in other states or countries (foreign transactions), by Internet, mail, telephone, drone, etc., my intent is the same and I should not be financially or criminally punished for simply taking advantage of technological advancements.

2. Such a method of state-to-state sales taxation is a creeping violation of our U.S. Constitution, A.I,S.10.

3. States are fraudulently attributing their decreased revenues to out of state sales as being the primary cause (i.e., there is no way to accurately track this data, unless the companies in question are themselves covertly volunteering it to the government and with considerable detail.)

4. All brick and mortars have their own Internet presence as well, if they are unwilling to compete with sites such as Amazon, Overstock, Newegg, or Ebay then that is their shortsighted strategic failure and they will continue failing.

5. Individual states do not have a right of claim to the sum of potential sales revenue alternatively made through the purchases of their residents or visitors--therefore, they can claim no bona fide "losses."

6. Individual states are still realizing revenue from purchases made through the Internet, which requires delivery, so thereby creating local jobs through increased aircraft, train, and courier traffic, fuel and vehicle maintenance expenses, packaging materials, etc.

7. States foreign to the physical locality of the origin of the purchases provide them with no representation, i.e., this is the core of taxation without representation--regardless to whom the sales tax is being pinned upon, be it the consumer or not, the seller is the party being obliged to determine and pay the tax.

8. This is an egregiously unreasonable burden to be foisted onto national/international businesses, them having to keep up to date on the ever changing and fickle taxation and reporting requirements of all 50-states.

9. States are sovereign to themselves, excepting the grant of authority provided by them and their people to the federal government; a state cannot compel the residents of another state to act simply because one or more of its own residents interacted with them.

10. This power will likely result in states imposing increasing out of state sales tax rates in a concerted effort to quash out or penalize all competition--and in effect sheltering brick and mortars. Additionally, it will result in a barrage of new state employment opportunities within state tax bureaus.

11. The people pushing for this type of immoral taxation are the very same people who also support shipping American jobs overseas and illegal immigration--thus their true motives are very telling.

Anti Federalist
06-22-2018, 02:29 AM
Won't affect me any.

NH for the win.

EBounding
06-22-2018, 09:37 AM
Not stoked on this one, Gorsuch will shine through in other very important areas in the future tho - but either way you will save at least 10x more on income taxes than you will spend on internet sales tax (especially since Amazon already charges it for non-third party sellers). So you voting for Trump ended up being a net positive. Good job.

Yeah the tax cuts are good. It's also a policy any other Republican nominee would have enacted.

dannno
06-22-2018, 09:50 AM
Yeah the tax cuts are good. It's also a policy any other Republican nominee would have enacted.

Ya but would they go for phase 2?

Sonny Tufts
06-22-2018, 10:23 AM
1. If I physically visit another state or made arrangements through a third-party to make a specified purchase in another state for me and then mail it to me, I would not be taxable for that purchase within my present state of residence

You would be liable for use tax in your state of residence, although it might be very difficult for the state to enforce the liability.


2. Such a method of state-to-state sales taxation is a creeping violation of our U.S. Constitution, A.I,S.10.

The prohibition on taxing "imports" without Congressional approval found in I.10.2 applies only to shipments from a foreign country, not those from other States.


5. Individual states do not have a right of claim to the sum of potential sales revenue alternatively made through the purchases of their residents or visitors--therefore, they can claim no bona fide "losses."

They have the authority to impose use taxes upon their residents, but it's much easier to require out-of-state sellers to collect sales tax.


7. States foreign to the physical locality of the origin of the purchases provide them with no representation, i.e., this is the core of taxation without representation--regardless to whom the sales tax is being pinned upon, be it the consumer or not, the seller is the party being obliged to determine and pay the tax.

But they provide them with a customer base and, according to the courts, the privilege to do business within their respective jurisdictions. And taxation without representation happens all the time -- taxes are imposed on minors, estates, trusts, and corporations, none of whom can vote.


8. This is an egregiously unreasonable burden to be foisted onto national/international businesses, them having to keep up to date on the ever changing and fickle taxation and reporting requirements of all 50-states.

National and international businesses are big enough to have in-house legal and accounting expertise and/or software programs to address this. The real burden will be on very small internet businesses who don't have such help, although I suspect someone like Turbotax will come out with a software program tailored to small businesses that will make tracking all the states' tax rates very easy. In addition, as the majority opinion pointed out, there are "20 States that have adopted the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. This system standardizes taxes to reduce administrative and compliance costs: It requires a single, state level tax administration, uniform definitions of products and services, simplified tax rate structures, and other uniform rules. It also provides sellers access to sales tax administration software paid for by the State. Sellers who choose to use such software are immune from audit liability."


9. States are sovereign to themselves, excepting the grant of authority provided by them and their people to the federal government; a state cannot compel the residents of another state to act simply because one or more of its own residents interacted with them.

It's a question of nexus. The majority opinion pointed out that the South Dakota statute exempted out-of-state sellers with less than $100,000 annual sales or 200 individual sales per year. Anything less might very well violate Due Process.


10. This power will likely result in states imposing increasing out of state sales tax rates in a concerted effort to quash out or penalize all competition--and in effect sheltering brick and mortars.

A State cannot discriminate against interstate commerce. Any increased sales tax rate would have to also apply to in-state sales.

RonZeplin
06-22-2018, 08:51 PM
(https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-21/tech-internet-stocks-tumble-after-scotus-rules-state-internet-tax-collection)Internet Stocks Tumble After SCOTUS Rules On State Internet Tax Collection
(https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-21/tech-internet-stocks-tumble-after-scotus-rules-state-internet-tax-collection)

Trump Gloats After SCOTUS Dings Online Retailers: "Great Victory For Consumers" (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-21/trump-gloats-after-scotus-dings-online-retailers-great-victory-consumers)https://78.media.tumblr.com/9ee7e28438cb9eaf63b1b6ce68392c03/tumblr_paoxqlAH1N1we4t2no1_640.png

Occam's Banana
06-22-2018, 11:04 PM
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the previous decisions were flawed.

"Each year the physical presence rule against robbing banks becomes further removed from economic reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States bank robbers. [...]," he wrote [...]

Fixed.

Just how do you "lose" something you didn't have to begin with?

(File in same drawer as "an increase in spending is a spending 'cut' if the increase is not as large as some other previously-only-notional-and-now-completely-irrelevant number" ...)

Weston White
06-23-2018, 04:35 AM
You would be liable for use tax in your state of residence, although it might be very difficult for the state to enforce the liability.

So far as this tax applies to non-privileged business activities, the ‘use tax’ is not constitutional, for states possess no sovereign power to control its residents as to their activities or arrangements occurring or taking place external to its borders (and frankly have no justifiable business seeking the business or sales records of foreign entities that its residents or visitors are party to)—e.g., imagine the utter lunacy of establishing a “vacation tax” upon residents that seek their fun and relaxation out of state.


The prohibition on taxing "imports" without Congressional approval found in I.10.2 applies only to shipments from a foreign country, not those from other States.

1. This also pertains to establishing treaties, alliances, and entering into agreements or compacts with other states.
2. While, true concerning what are imports and exports, it is indicative that states are not to meddle in the affairs of foreign entities, including other states.
3. This is even further substantiated by the restriction on states from laying tonnage duties for the use of state operated ports.


They have the authority to impose use taxes upon their residents, but it's much easier to require out-of-state sellers to collect sales tax.

No, no they do not. The tax is merely a runaround machination devised by progressive-minded control freaks. In fact its name is very telling, the ‘use tax’ is a tax upon items brought into the state after having been purchased outside of the state by its residents or visitors, so as to effect a “level” selling field for the merchants within the state (regardless if the items purchased are even available intrastate.) This tax is based on the faulty notion that governments are to be operated as for-profit corporations, which must continuously exceed financial projections. However, the sole basis of taxation is to provide revenue to respective government entities for the better good and protection of the whole public (as opposed to specific individuals and groups), not to “level” the field between competing states and the merchants thereof (in fact government is not obliged to shield business ventures of any kind), make the bottom line black, or punish, restrict, or encourage individual choice or behaviors, and the like (e.g., such as excessive taxes on tobacco, firearms, and fuel products.)


But they provide them with a customer base and, according to the courts, the privilege to do business within their respective jurisdictions. And taxation without representation happens all the time -- taxes are imposed on minors, estates, trusts, and corporations, none of whom can vote.

Those examples hardly qualify as taxation without representation as it is meant.


A State cannot discriminate against interstate commerce. Any increased sales tax rate would have to also apply to in-state sales.

State sales taxes are in-state sales as defined by such form of taxation; but sure they could, they would simply color it under a different name or legal theory/justification (just like states can prohibit commerce all together such fluoride removing water filters, mail-order ammunition, large capacity magazines, hooch, etc.), further still, individual states set their own tax rates, so they could work in cooperation with each other depending on the given pros and cons of their geography and commercial atmosphere; similarly to how each county sets their own sales tax rate—which will affect other serious concerns with this form of proposed taxation.

Also, this is a method of double taxation, for the consumer is going to very likely be taxed on the same act by both their state of residence and the state of purchase, and further may have to additionally pay service fees, shipping fees, insurance, etc.

So effectively, conglomerations and monopolies are going to become motivated to setup operations in states with no (or very little) sales taxes, creating a Delaware corporation effect.

Weston White
06-23-2018, 04:38 AM
Really, it is a great victory to be twice taxed for the same event? Say, let's just get the federal government in on this too, it can go from being a great victory to being a monumentally astonishing amazing victory. Seriously, WTF!

oyarde
06-23-2018, 06:56 AM
Gotta love that selling used stuff on ebay will now make me pay tax on it. Double theft!

This is going to get messy fast for an average small online seller to figure out state and local taxes. Large retailers must be loving this

Yes

Sonny Tufts
06-23-2018, 02:18 PM
So far as this tax applies to non-privileged business activities, the ‘use tax’ is not constitutional

A state's authority to tax its citizens doesn't depend on their engaging in privileged activity.


While, true concerning what are imports and exports, it is indicative that states are not to meddle in the affairs of foreign entities, including other states.

It's not meddling when the states enter into the sales tax agreement voluntarily.


Also, this is a method of double taxation, for the consumer is going to very likely be taxed on the same act by both their state of residence and the state of purchase

Hopelessly wrong. If you pay sales tax in the state in which you made the purchase, you won't owe use tax when you bring it back to your home state. If you didn't pay sales tax, however (because sales tax isn't normally charged on items that are shipped out of state immediately after purchase), you will.


Really, it is a great victory to be twice taxed for the same event? Say, let's just get the federal government in on this too, it can go from being a great victory to being a monumentally astonishing amazing victory. Seriously, WTF!

States and the federal government tax the same thing all the time, especially in those states (such as California) that have their own income tax.

Weston White
06-24-2018, 01:55 AM
A state's authority to tax its citizens doesn't depend on their engaging in privileged activity.

Not exactly, such authority is wholly dependent upon context (e.g., California recognizes within its state constitution that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and is thusly obliged to serve according to its erudite maxims), specifically, as to the inherent rights of individuals and their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness; there are very concerning ethical considerations due to the people being served by their just form of republican government.

* Government officials don't just get to do whatever the hell they wish, simply because they were "elected" or because they believe themselves to be self-entitled from their purchasing of a juris doctor or political science degree from whatever overpriced and overvalued socialistic university.


It's not meddling when the states enter into the sales tax agreement voluntarily.

Again, the federal constitution fairly clearly besets the states from doing such; else, we are no longer 50-sovereign states, but are just one large bloc-continent with a national government and its states existing in name only with borders, flags, seals, etc., which are merely ceremonial and nothing more (see how well this worked out for the Soviet Socialist Republics of Russia.)


Hopelessly wrong. If you pay sales tax in the state in which you made the purchase, you won't owe use tax when you bring it back to your home state. If you didn't pay sales tax, however (because sales tax isn't normally charged on items that are shipped out of state immediately after purchase), you will.

No, that is not actually true (see below); regardless, it is the case in the most practical sense, as the intention of this is all is to collect taxes on Internet purchases, which includes taxes due to the state the purchases are made in--so the consumer is being doubly taxed, while the seller is effectively obliged to do work for both a state they have no direct association with in addition to the state they are operating from within.


You must pay California use tax when you purchase out-of-state items by telephone, Internet, mail, or in person and both of the following apply:


The seller does not collect California sales or use tax.
You use, give away, store, or consume the item in this state.


www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/use-tax.shtml


States and the federal government tax the same thing all the time, especially in those states (such as California) that have their own income tax.

Oh thank you for proving my point; however (notwithstanding the gross misapplication of individual income taxes), these are from distinct levels of government, nonetheless, the federal government holds supremacy on the matter, so states should not be levying taxes upon that which is already being taxed elsewhere.

* Noting too that you are being taxed on a portion of money that was taxed and collected by another government and was never at any time in possession or control of the taxpayer and was of zero realized benefit to that taxpayer other than to owe taxes on it. E.g., if a person makes $75,000 a year, they are paying taxes on that whole sum to both the IRS and FTB, even though $25,000 of it was turned over to the IRS and $5,000 to the FTB, for example (these figures are not based on any actual tax percentages, just as a hypothetical.)

nikcers
06-24-2018, 03:21 AM
Will this bring Circuit CIty and Blockbuster back? Can the tax be retro-active? Could state law rule that their current laws on the books include websites that don't have a physical presence even when the words don't explicitly say so?

Wooden Indian
06-24-2018, 09:01 AM
.... So next time I buy a $2500 generator online, they'll charge me $99 + Tax, and $2400 for shipping and handling?

Sonny Tufts
06-24-2018, 09:20 AM
No, that is not actually true (see below); regardless, it is the case in the most practical sense, as the intention of this is all is to collect taxes on Internet purchases, which includes taxes due to the state the purchases are made in--so the consumer is being doubly taxed, while the seller is effectively obliged to do work for both a state they have no direct association with in addition to the state they are operating from within.

You must pay California use tax when you purchase out-of-state items by telephone, Internet, mail, or in person and both of the following apply:

The seller does not collect California sales or use tax.
You use, give away, store, or consume the item in this state.

You neglected to read further and note how the use tax is calculated. Any sales tax paid to the state in which the purchase is made is subtracted from the use tax payable to California. There is no double tax because you will never pay more than the use tax you would owe if no sales tax had ever been collected by the seller.

Weston White
06-24-2018, 10:29 AM
You neglected to read further and note how the use tax is calculated. Any sales tax paid to the state in which the purchase is made is subtracted from the use tax payable to California. There is no double tax because you will never pay more than the use tax you would owe if no sales tax had ever been collected by the seller.

Regardless, you are in fact being double-taxed, you are just being permitted to deduct the lesser amount, if applicable--which is a stipulation that could be amended at any time.

Use the Tax Lookup Table... "File or Page Not Found" There is the California fuck-tard bureaucrats for ya! (Guess they are all too busy watching gay porn in their gender neutral restrooms to do any actual work.)

CCTelander
06-24-2018, 10:53 AM
Fixed.

Just how do you "lose" something you didn't have to begin with?

(File in same drawer as "an increase in spending is a spending 'cut' if the increase is not as large as some other previously-only-notional-and-now-completely-irrelevant number" ...)


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again."

Swordsmyth
06-29-2018, 10:45 PM
Mi9 Retail, a leading global supplier of omni-channel retail software, today announced that its e-commerce solution is ready to support the legislative changes determined by the United States Supreme Court ruling, South Dakota v. Wayfair, on tax compliance requirements for online retailers. Mi9 Retail business partner Avalara (https://www.avalara.com/us/en/learn/sales-tax/South-Dakota-Wayfair.html) delivers tax compliant solutions integrated with Mi9 e-Commerce that allow retailers to manage compliance in the face of ever-changing tax regulations. The Mi9 e-commerce solution also natively supports the tax parameters needed for online merchants when the new ruling is enforced.

More at: http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/mi9-retail-delivers-tax-compliant-solution-for-online-retailers-who-must-now-collect-sales-taxes-1027331038

enhanced_deficit
06-29-2018, 11:11 PM
More $$s for States but this is going to hurt many small businesses online particularly.

AZJoe
07-05-2018, 12:30 AM
This South Dakota vs Wayfair decision is terribly anti- progress, anti-prosperity, anti-consumer.

On the practical side, it increases the costs of providing goods to consumers. Just having to keep track of continuously changing sales tax laws of fifty separate states plus territories. Not merely varying rates, but also which goods the taxes apply to, many with differing rates for different goods. For instance Texas has one sales tax rate for ordinary deodorant and a different rate for anti-perspirant. Amongst the various jurisdictions, there is a flood of different product categories with varying rates – edible vs non-edible, large ticket, small ticket. Consumables, clothing vs books, containing certain ingredients for without, large appliances vs, household, and so forth.


Then there is also keeping track of all the separate thresholds. South Dakota set a threshold of $100,000 or 200 transaction. Another might set the threshold at 50 transaction, while another at $250,0000 or 500 transaction.


And there is the question of how the product is purchase. What if a Citizen from New York visits California and purchases an item there and has it shipped back to New York. It is likewise the purchase of an out of state product delivered to New York. How is the purchase any Are the California business now to keep tract of tax laws of every other jurisdiction if they offer shipping for their in person customers. What if the customer order by telephone? It is no different then internet. What if the New York Resident is in New Jersey or even Mexico at the time he places the internet order with the California business? Must the taxes be withheld?


Then there is also how the state categorizes a sale “in the state”. For instance Wisconsin may require taxing all sales where the billing address is in the state. Minnesota may tax all sales where the product is shipped to an address in the state. And what if consumer in in Wisconsin orders a gift from a seller in California to ship to her aunt in Minnesota. Now the poor business has to withhold and file taxes for both Wisconsin and Minnesota.


And the 50 states is just the beginning. Every municipality, county or other public incorporation that has a sales tax will want its piece of the racket too. The Supreme Court’s rational for allowing this monstrosity applies equally to every municipal or local sales tax. After all, “Each year the physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic reality and results in significant revenue losses to the [Municipalities].” These local governments are being “deprived” of their cut of the sales tax racket by the You think they are going to want to be left out of this bonanza. Some state will be the first to require collection of the local sales taxes as well, and others will follow. Now instead of keeping tract 50+ continuously changing tax jurisdictions, you’ll have to keep tract of and act as collection goon for thousands of different tax jurisdiction, with varying rates for a plethora of different products.


And the business does not get paid to do all this collection racket, and accounting, and risk, and continuous legal upkeep for these rackets. The business must bear all the costs imposed y these obligations. The Amazons and Wal-Marts will certainly be able to created special accounting and legal departments and absorb the additional overhead. But many small, medium and less big businesses will be kept at bay by the increased costs, complexities, and risk.


The incentive will be to move all online retailing overseas. We could see the explosion of online retail all going to China. Sure there will be customs tax on anything requiring it. But that at least is only one jurisdiction to keep track of. Plus that is paid by the recipient. The retailer need not keep track of or collect it. It’s just one more nail in the coffin of US competitiveness and trade.


And there are serious legal fallacies in the Curt’s decision as well. First, the Court completely overturned long standing well-established precedent.


What basis does a state have over some business with no presence in that state? Just because some consumer in the state decides to buy from a business in another state? If anything, the state could requires its own residents to keep track of and pay sales tax on goods they buy elsewhere.


If a business is in California or Texas and has no physical presence in South Dakota, is South Dakota to be able to revoke its Texas or California business license. Will South Dakota send its revenue enforcement officers to go and arrest business officer in Texas or California? Shut down their business in other states? Where does South Dakota get jurisdiction to impose laws and enforcement inside other sovereign states?


P.S. – TAXATION IS THEFT!

nobody's_hero
07-05-2018, 10:12 AM
The Supreme Court created the physical presence test to begin with, and today's opinion simply undoes what the Court did decades ago.

Indeed. That's the way I see it. This ruling pretty much puts us back where we started.

My biggest concern is that Congress is now going to want to put their grubby hands all over laws to make the Fed government come up with a standardized national sales tax. I don't want to pay the same thing as California in sales tax here in Georgia. But to make it fair, it would have to be the same. (which I'm sure our state level critters at the GA general assembly would LOVE). I'm sure the Feds would want their cut of the sales tax, too, for their troubles.:rolleyes:

nobody's_hero
07-05-2018, 10:19 AM
More $$s for States but this is going to hurt many small businesses online particularly.

Hmm. Maybe. I would think they are also hurt by having a physical presence and paying taxes while a huge online company like Amazon can offer the same goods cheaper since they don't have to factor sales tax. People walk in your store, look at an item, and say, "Hmm. I can get that a lot cheaper online." And they walk out without buying anything (from you). Running a brick and mortar store these days is like 'trying it before buying it' and they ain't buying from you.

Kind of like tariffs in a way. If I want to try to sell to you, I get punched in the face. But if you want to sell to me, you get a pat on the back. One of us is gonna lose the will to run a business, and it's probably gonna be the one who keeps getting punched in the face. Ideally, no one should be getting punches to the face or pats on the back and the best business would win.