Sales Tax Laws Got Complicated

[Rick C]

The whole "economic nexus" thing is complicated and varies from state to state. Looks like the Supreme Court opened a bit of a can of worms.

Here is what Maryland says about it...

"A marketplace facilitator that has an obligation to collect Maryland sales tax, sells or facilitates sales of tangible personal property into Maryland, and processes payments on behalf of sellers must collect and remit sales tax on all sales made through the marketplace for delivery into Maryland. However, a marketplace facilitator and seller may ask for a waiver of this collection requirement if:

The marketplace seller is a publicly traded communications company;
The marketplace facilitator and marketplace seller have an agreement that the seller will collect and remit applicable taxes; and
The marketplace seller provides the facilitator with evidence that the seller is licensed to engage in the business of an out-of-state vendor in Maryland

Non-collecting seller use tax reporting:
No"

It seems the "marketplace facilitator" is the guy being held responsible unless they can prove the seller is the right guy. The "marketplace facilitator" is someone like eBay or Aliexpress I believe.

What got me looking into this is the fact that Virginia and other states already require the collection of these taxes, but it seems Maryland is still not. They are a pretty heavy tax state, but they are a bit slow on the uptake with this one. So my mail order stuff is being delivered to MD for the interim.

Now if I can just find that aluminum kayak trailer before Maryland starts collecting.

Why are "publicly traded communications companies" exempt?

Oh yeah, this seems to even involve foreign companies. Does Aliexpress have any physical presence in the US??? Telling US companies have to cooperate with all states is one thing, but foreign companies???

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/08/27 12:08 a.m., Rick C wrote:

The whole "economic nexus" thing is complicated and varies from state to state. Looks like the Supreme Court opened a bit of a can of worms.

Here is what Maryland says about it...

"A marketplace facilitator that has an obligation to collect Maryland sales tax, sells or facilitates sales of tangible personal property into Maryland, and processes payments on behalf of sellers must collect and remit sales tax on all sales made through the marketplace for delivery into Maryland. However, a marketplace facilitator and seller may ask for a waiver of this collection requirement if:

The marketplace seller is a publicly traded communications company;
The marketplace facilitator and marketplace seller have an agreement that the seller will collect and remit applicable taxes; and
The marketplace seller provides the facilitator with evidence that the seller is licensed to engage in the business of an out-of-state vendor in Maryland

Non-collecting seller use tax reporting:
No"

It seems the "marketplace facilitator" is the guy being held responsible unless they can prove the seller is the right guy. The "marketplace facilitator" is someone like eBay or Aliexpress I believe.

What got me looking into this is the fact that Virginia and other states already require the collection of these taxes, but it seems Maryland is still not. They are a pretty heavy tax state, but they are a bit slow on the uptake with this one. So my mail order stuff is being delivered to MD for the interim.

Now if I can just find that aluminum kayak trailer before Maryland starts collecting.

Why are "publicly traded communications companies" exempt?

Oh yeah, this seems to even involve foreign companies. Does Aliexpress have any physical presence in the US??? Telling US companies have to cooperate with all states is one thing, but foreign companies???

That already works in Canada when we sell products through Amazon.ca - a
Marketplace Facilitator - Amazon charges tax based on the home province
of the buyer and remits it to the appropriate provincial government. If
I am not mistaken we get the federal tax portion and have to remit that
on our trimonthly GST (Goods & Services Tax) remittance to the feds.

I don't know what happens in the US when you buy from Amazon.com, but it
looks like Maryland wants the same piece of the action (state tax) that
they would get for a sale made within their borders as one made within
the USA via Amazon (or whoever) that ends up delivered within Maryland.

Craigslist better watch out!

John :-#)#

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:29:08 AM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:

On 2019/08/27 12:08 a.m., Rick C wrote:
The whole "economic nexus" thing is complicated and varies from state to state. Looks like the Supreme Court opened a bit of a can of worms.

Here is what Maryland says about it...

"A marketplace facilitator that has an obligation to collect Maryland sales tax, sells or facilitates sales of tangible personal property into Maryland, and processes payments on behalf of sellers must collect and remit sales tax on all sales made through the marketplace for delivery into Maryland. However, a marketplace facilitator and seller may ask for a waiver of this collection requirement if:

The marketplace seller is a publicly traded communications company;
The marketplace facilitator and marketplace seller have an agreement that the seller will collect and remit applicable taxes; and
The marketplace seller provides the facilitator with evidence that the seller is licensed to engage in the business of an out-of-state vendor in Maryland

Non-collecting seller use tax reporting:
No"

It seems the "marketplace facilitator" is the guy being held responsible unless they can prove the seller is the right guy. The "marketplace facilitator" is someone like eBay or Aliexpress I believe.

What got me looking into this is the fact that Virginia and other states already require the collection of these taxes, but it seems Maryland is still not. They are a pretty heavy tax state, but they are a bit slow on the uptake with this one. So my mail order stuff is being delivered to MD for the interim.

Now if I can just find that aluminum kayak trailer before Maryland starts collecting.

Why are "publicly traded communications companies" exempt?

Oh yeah, this seems to even involve foreign companies. Does Aliexpress have any physical presence in the US??? Telling US companies have to cooperate with all states is one thing, but foreign companies???



That already works in Canada when we sell products through Amazon.ca - a
Marketplace Facilitator - Amazon charges tax based on the home province
of the buyer and remits it to the appropriate provincial government. If
I am not mistaken we get the federal tax portion and have to remit that
on our trimonthly GST (Goods & Services Tax) remittance to the feds.

I don't know what happens in the US when you buy from Amazon.com, but it
looks like Maryland wants the same piece of the action (state tax) that
they would get for a sale made within their borders as one made within
the USA via Amazon (or whoever) that ends up delivered within Maryland.

Craigslist better watch out!

I assume Amazon has physical presence in Canada. Does Aliexpress do the same? I guess they could also have physical presence.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Winfield Hill]

Rick C wrote...

Does Aliexpress do the same? I guess they
could also have physical presence.

Really, why?


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:32:42 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

Rick C wrote...

Does Aliexpress do the same? I guess they
could also have physical presence.

Really, why?

I don't know, but why else would they be collecting the tax? How could US law be binding on foreign companies with no US presence? It's not like Aliexpress is shipping any of the packages so they could be stopped. They are just a "marketplace facilitator" handling the money.

I'm appalled SCOTUS reversed the long standing precedent and is allowing the taxes to be collected at all. In other cases they actually asked a lawyer if he felt SCOTUS should reverse a long standing decision for the simple reason that it was the "right" thing to do. lol Then they reverse this decision just so the states can impose more and more taxes on us. No one was "losing" money on this. Sales tax collection was increasing every year even without the rising sales tax rates. The states are so greedy they wanted taxes to increase faster.

One of my electric bills has 15 line items when the electric company only needs three to charge me for electricity.

A friend auto-pays his electric bill and has no idea what they are billing him for. There must be something wrong with me.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

tirsdag den 27. august 2019 kl. 16.40.29 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:32:42 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

Does Aliexpress do the same? I guess they
could also have physical presence.

Really, why?

I don't know, but why else would they be collecting the tax? How could US law be binding on foreign companies with no US presence? It's not like Aliexpress is shipping any of the packages so they could be stopped. They are just a "marketplace facilitator" handling the money.

like the EU. if is from one EU country to another EU country the seller is responsible for collection and forwarding the VAT to the buyers country
(once it is above some minimum annual amount to the country)

if it is from a country outside EU shipments go though customs and if they determine that you have to pay vat the shipping company (fedex/DHL/UPS, et.al.) collect the VAT at delivery

 

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:08:11 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

You rant about some USSC ruling, which you do not cite, then you copy a bunch of gibberish from a Maryland regulation or pamphlet. Hopefully this isn't representative of anything.

 

[Winfield Hill]

Rick C wrote...

I'm appalled SCOTUS reversed the long standing precedent
and is allowing the taxes to be collected at all.

I don't begrudge the state its revenue. That's where
we live, and most of the important things government
does is state based, not federal government based.
States are perennially short of critical funds for
infrastructure, transportation, education, etc.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[George Herold]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

I'm appalled SCOTUS reversed the long standing precedent
and is allowing the taxes to be collected at all.

I don't begrudge the state its revenue. That's where
we live, and most of the important things government
does is state based, not federal government based.
States are perennially short of critical funds for
infrastructure, transportation, education, etc.


--
Thanks,
- Win

I don't disagree with that, but it's wrong for a state to
be able to tax someone who does not live in that state, and
who has no vote, no representation to appeal to.

The purpose of sales tax should be to repay the seller's state
for the cost of its vital services and infrastructure used in
producing the product.

The buyer's state contributed nothing to the labors of production,
and shouldn't have any claim on the fruits.

James, what's the difference if I go down to my local hardware store
and buy some screw made in China, vs buying it on amazon?
I think I could argue that the amazon order puts more 'wear and tear' on
my state. (It certainly puts more wear and tear on my long gravel driveway. :^)


George H.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

Rick C wrote...

I'm appalled SCOTUS reversed the long standing precedent
and is allowing the taxes to be collected at all.

I don't begrudge the state its revenue. That's where
we live, and most of the important things government
does is state based, not federal government based.
States are perennially short of critical funds for
infrastructure, transportation, education, etc.


--
Thanks,
- Win

I don't disagree with that, but it's wrong for a state to
be able to tax someone who does not live in that state, and
who has no vote, no representation to appeal to.

The purpose of sales tax should be to repay the seller's state
for the cost of its vital services and infrastructure used in
producing the product.

The buyer's state contributed nothing to the labors of production,
and shouldn't have any claim on the fruits.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:18:09 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

I'm appalled SCOTUS reversed the long standing precedent
and is allowing the taxes to be collected at all.

I don't begrudge the state its revenue. That's where
we live, and most of the important things government
does is state based, not federal government based.
States are perennially short of critical funds for
infrastructure, transportation, education, etc.


--
Thanks,
- Win

I don't disagree with that, but it's wrong for a state to
be able to tax someone who does not live in that state, and
who has no vote, no representation to appeal to.

The purpose of sales tax should be to repay the seller's state
for the cost of its vital services and infrastructure used in
producing the product.

The buyer's state contributed nothing to the labors of production,
and shouldn't have any claim on the fruits.

James, what's the difference if I go down to my local hardware store
and buy some screw made in China, vs buying it on amazon?
I think I could argue that the amazon order puts more 'wear and tear' on
my state. (It certainly puts more wear and tear on my long gravel driveway. :^)

If your state wants to tax purchases and the voters approve, I suppose
they could go ahead and do that. But that's not a sales tax imposed
on someone out of state, that would be a purchase tax imposed by a
state on their own citizens.

It doesn't appeal much to me, but if New York wants to do that that's
up to them and their voters.

To me, the producer should reap the rewards of his labor, and be
responsible for the costs, too. That's the seller, and the seller's
state.

If your state had nothing to do with producing the product, why
do they deserve a share of the result?

More critically, there's a question of federalism. Should state 'A'
be able to impose laws obliging other states' citizens beyond its
borders, requiring citizens of 49 other states to, for example, collect
taxes for them?

That seems abundantly clear: no.

That's taxing the seller without representation. It robs the seller's
state of rightful revenue from a product the seller's state was used
to help to create.

And state 'A', passing laws imposing duties on state 'B's citizens
outside of its borders, is asserting sovereignty over 'B's citizens.
That violates state 'B's sovereignty -- they get to preside over
their citizens. State 'B' and its citizens get to decide their
own taxes, and the duties of its citizens.

State 'A' extending its laws past its borders defeats the purpose of
having states, it defeats the Constitution's guarantee

"to every State ... a Republican Form of Government" (Art. IV, sec. 4)

(that is, each state is guaranteed a representative form of government,
with representatives of their local choosing).

If your government / country / state played no role in the planting
of the wheat, the harvesting, the milling, or the baking of the loaves,
what exactly is their claim to Henny-Penny's (The Little Red Hen) bread?

SCOTUS botched this one badly, IMO.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[George Herold]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:49:55 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:18:09 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

I'm appalled SCOTUS reversed the long standing precedent
and is allowing the taxes to be collected at all.

I don't begrudge the state its revenue. That's where
we live, and most of the important things government
does is state based, not federal government based.
States are perennially short of critical funds for
infrastructure, transportation, education, etc.


--
Thanks,
- Win

I don't disagree with that, but it's wrong for a state to
be able to tax someone who does not live in that state, and
who has no vote, no representation to appeal to.

The purpose of sales tax should be to repay the seller's state
for the cost of its vital services and infrastructure used in
producing the product.

The buyer's state contributed nothing to the labors of production,
and shouldn't have any claim on the fruits.

James, what's the difference if I go down to my local hardware store
and buy some screw made in China, vs buying it on amazon?
I think I could argue that the amazon order puts more 'wear and tear' on
my state. (It certainly puts more wear and tear on my long gravel driveway. :^)

If your state wants to tax purchases and the voters approve, I suppose
they could go ahead and do that. But that's not a sales tax imposed
on someone out of state, that would be a purchase tax imposed by a
state on their own citizens.

Hmm, James you are smart enough to argue rings around me... my head spins.
(Have pity.)
The above is a 'sales tax'... that to me is the same as a 'tax on purchases'.
If you come into my state, buy said Chinese screw from 'my' hardware store we
collect a sales tax on you.. an out of stater.

If you are meaning something else here I'd need a lot more words to understand the
distinction. I think below you are talking about a value added tax.
I haven't thought much about VAT's. (I really haven't thought much about taxes
mostly just grin and pay 'em.)

It doesn't appeal much to me, but if New York wants to do that that's
up to them and their voters.

To me, the producer should reap the rewards of his labor, and be
responsible for the costs, too. That's the seller, and the seller's
state.

If your state had nothing to do with producing the product, why
do they deserve a share of the result?

Isn't this a VAT and not a sales tax?

More critically, there's a question of federalism. Should state 'A'
be able to impose laws obliging other states' citizens beyond its
borders, requiring citizens of 49 other states to, for example, collect
taxes for them?

That seems abundantly clear: no.
Well the states rights discussion is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Why can't you stick with my simple example? Chinese made screw sold by
local hardware store and amazon. They should be able to compete equally.
Giving amazon a tax advantage seems to disadvantage my local guy.
(And I want my local guy to stay around, I'm happy to pay his mark-up,
and do business with him, for the convenience of running over there on
a Saturday morning to buy said Chinese screw to fix whatever is broken
that day.) In this electronic age it's not at all clear to me in what state
the sale of a screw on amazon takes place?

That's taxing the seller without representation. It robs the seller's
state of rightful revenue from a product the seller's state was used
to help to create.

And state 'A', passing laws imposing duties on state 'B's citizens
outside of its borders, is asserting sovereignty over 'B's citizens.
That violates state 'B's sovereignty -- they get to preside over
their citizens. State 'B' and its citizens get to decide their
own taxes, and the duties of its citizens.

State 'A' extending its laws past its borders defeats the purpose of
having states, it defeats the Constitution's guarantee

"to every State ... a Republican Form of Government" (Art. IV, sec. 4)

(that is, each state is guaranteed a representative form of government,
with representatives of their local choosing).

If your government / country / state played no role in the planting
of the wheat, the harvesting, the milling, or the baking of the loaves,
what exactly is their claim to Henny-Penny's (The Little Red Hen) bread?

The above is all worthy of discussion, but seems to have little to do with sales
taxes. I have to pay sales tax on my car, even if it's a used car purchased
from a private citizen! I have no love of taxes.

George H.

SCOTUS botched this one badly, IMO.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 12:11:23 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

tirsdag den 27. august 2019 kl. 16.40.29 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:32:42 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

Does Aliexpress do the same? I guess they
could also have physical presence.

Really, why?

I don't know, but why else would they be collecting the tax? How could US law be binding on foreign companies with no US presence? It's not like Aliexpress is shipping any of the packages so they could be stopped. They are just a "marketplace facilitator" handling the money.


like the EU. if is from one EU country to another EU country the seller is responsible for collection and forwarding the VAT to the buyers country
(once it is above some minimum annual amount to the country)

if it is from a country outside EU shipments go though customs and if they determine that you have to pay vat the shipping company (fedex/DHL/UPS, et.al.) collect the VAT at delivery

I'm pretty sure US customs is not getting into this fray. It would be as much of a mess for them to try to figure out any tax that is required as for anyone. Remember, this is not a national tax. It's not completely a state tax (50 states+). It can also be a county tax or even a city tax and many times combinations of the three.

I don't know about other sales tax, but in Virginia they let the county and cities collect tax on restaurants so pretty much restaurant tax is 11% instead of 6%. Some places do the same with sales tax. Then there is the time factor. They keep changing the tax laws to raise (never lower) sales tax as well as the things it is collected on. As a country this is a mess.

One of the reasons SCOTUS changed their collective minds is that we *now* have the technology to implement this using computers. Damn that quantum computing. I knew it would lead to no good!!!

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:49:55 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:18:09 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

I'm appalled SCOTUS reversed the long standing precedent
and is allowing the taxes to be collected at all.

I don't begrudge the state its revenue. That's where
we live, and most of the important things government
does is state based, not federal government based.
States are perennially short of critical funds for
infrastructure, transportation, education, etc.


--
Thanks,
- Win

I don't disagree with that, but it's wrong for a state to
be able to tax someone who does not live in that state, and
who has no vote, no representation to appeal to.

The purpose of sales tax should be to repay the seller's state
for the cost of its vital services and infrastructure used in
producing the product.

The buyer's state contributed nothing to the labors of production,
and shouldn't have any claim on the fruits.

James, what's the difference if I go down to my local hardware store
and buy some screw made in China, vs buying it on amazon?
I think I could argue that the amazon order puts more 'wear and tear' on
my state. (It certainly puts more wear and tear on my long gravel driveway. :^)

If your state wants to tax purchases and the voters approve, I suppose
they could go ahead and do that. But that's not a sales tax imposed
on someone out of state, that would be a purchase tax imposed by a
state on their own citizens.
Hmm, James you are smart enough to argue rings around me... my head spins.
(Have pity.)
The above is a 'sales tax'... that to me is the same as a 'tax on purchases'.
If you come into my state, buy said Chinese screw from 'my' hardware store we
collect a sales tax on you.. an out of stater.

That's fine. A state has jurisdiction inside its boundaries and can
have whatever taxes it wants to. If an out-of-stater comes to NY and
buys something in NY, he has to follow NY's rules.

But Rick's referring to a Supreme Court decision that states can require
out-of-state sellers living elsewhere, to collect and remit sales tax to
the buyer's state.

So I thought we were talking about that -- you mail-order something
from Oklahoma, and New York makes Mom-n-Pop(tm) in Oklahoma collect
New York sales tax from you, and send the money to New York. Mom-n-Pop
in Oklahoma now has to act as tax collector for New York.

If you are meaning something else here I'd need a lot more words to understand the
distinction. I think below you are talking about a value added tax.
I haven't thought much about VAT's. (I really haven't thought much about taxes
mostly just grin and pay 'em.)

It doesn't appeal much to me, but if New York wants to do that that's
up to them and their voters.

To me, the producer should reap the rewards of his labor, and be
responsible for the costs, too. That's the seller, and the seller's
state.

If your state had nothing to do with producing the product, why
do they deserve a share of the result?

Isn't this a VAT and not a sales tax?

VAT's another topic.

More critically, there's a question of federalism. Should state 'A'
be able to impose laws obliging other states' citizens beyond its
borders, requiring citizens of 49 other states to, for example, collect
taxes for them?

That seems abundantly clear: no.
Well the states rights discussion is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Why can't you stick with my simple example? Chinese made screw sold by
local hardware store and amazon. They should be able to compete equally.
Giving amazon a tax advantage seems to disadvantage my local guy.

I don't think so -- the mail-order guy has to pay shipping. That's a
big handicap. (I need a 5k potentiometer, but I'm not willing to pay
$7 shipping + $1 to get a $1 part.)

And the local in-state can sell over the internet too, if he wants to.
There's nothing stopping him. Why not set up a website and do both?

I like local businesses and I try to buy stuff from them, even if
it's a little more. I value their efforts. I want small businesses
to stay around, too.

The internet is one of the greatest opportunities for them, ever,
though. Making the scrappy one-horse outfits collect internet sales
tax for all 50 states and the 1,000's of counties of all of their
customers is a terrible development. I don't know what SCOTUS
was thinking.

(And I want my local guy to stay around, I'm happy to pay his mark-up,
and do business with him, for the convenience of running over there on
a Saturday morning to buy said Chinese screw to fix whatever is broken
that day.) In this electronic age it's not at all clear to me in what state
the sale of a screw on amazon takes place?

That's taxing the seller without representation. It robs the seller's
state of rightful revenue from a product the seller's state was used
to help to create.

And state 'A', passing laws imposing duties on state 'B's citizens
outside of its borders, is asserting sovereignty over 'B's citizens.
That violates state 'B's sovereignty -- they get to preside over
their citizens. State 'B' and its citizens get to decide their
own taxes, and the duties of its citizens.

State 'A' extending its laws past its borders defeats the purpose of
having states, it defeats the Constitution's guarantee

"to every State ... a Republican Form of Government" (Art. IV, sec. 4)

(that is, each state is guaranteed a representative form of government,
with representatives of their local choosing).

If your government / country / state played no role in the planting
of the wheat, the harvesting, the milling, or the baking of the loaves,
what exactly is their claim to Henny-Penny's (The Little Red Hen) bread?

The above is all worthy of discussion, but seems to have little to do with sales
taxes. I have to pay sales tax on my car, even if it's a used car purchased
from a private citizen! I have no love of taxes.

I was speaking to the issue of states imposing their sales taxes and
the duty of collecting those taxes on people who physically reside
and are conducting their portion of the transaction in other states.

If you buy a used car in your state, naturally you owe sales tax. That's
how states pay for the services they provide. That's fair and
proportionate -- you used a bit of your state's services to make
and sell whatever it was you sold. They deserve part of the revenue.

But if you make a purchase in another state, then your state had no
part in it. The purchase (and any tax) should be governed by the
other state; your state shouldn't have any stake or say in that.

George H.

SCOTUS botched this one badly, IMO.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

onsdag den 28. august 2019 kl. 02.22.43 UTC+2 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:49:55 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:18:09 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

I'm appalled SCOTUS reversed the long standing precedent
and is allowing the taxes to be collected at all.

I don't begrudge the state its revenue. That's where
we live, and most of the important things government
does is state based, not federal government based.
States are perennially short of critical funds for
infrastructure, transportation, education, etc.


--
Thanks,
- Win

I don't disagree with that, but it's wrong for a state to
be able to tax someone who does not live in that state, and
who has no vote, no representation to appeal to.

The purpose of sales tax should be to repay the seller's state
for the cost of its vital services and infrastructure used in
producing the product.

The buyer's state contributed nothing to the labors of production,
and shouldn't have any claim on the fruits.

James, what's the difference if I go down to my local hardware store
and buy some screw made in China, vs buying it on amazon?
I think I could argue that the amazon order puts more 'wear and tear' on
my state. (It certainly puts more wear and tear on my long gravel driveway. :^)

If your state wants to tax purchases and the voters approve, I suppose
they could go ahead and do that. But that's not a sales tax imposed
on someone out of state, that would be a purchase tax imposed by a
state on their own citizens.
Hmm, James you are smart enough to argue rings around me... my head spins.
(Have pity.)
The above is a 'sales tax'... that to me is the same as a 'tax on purchases'.
If you come into my state, buy said Chinese screw from 'my' hardware store we
collect a sales tax on you.. an out of stater.

That's fine. A state has jurisdiction inside its boundaries and can
have whatever taxes it wants to. If an out-of-stater comes to NY and
buys something in NY, he has to follow NY's rules.

But Rick's referring to a Supreme Court decision that states can require
out-of-state sellers living elsewhere, to collect and remit sales tax to
the buyer's state.

So I thought we were talking about that -- you mail-order something
from Oklahoma, and New York makes Mom-n-Pop(tm) in Oklahoma collect
New York sales tax from you, and send the money to New York. Mom-n-Pop
in Oklahoma now has to act as tax collector for New York.

so it is the same rules for everyone, if you want to sell stuff in New York
you collect and pay tax in New York

so you can't just move the business address to a low tax state and unfairly compete with those who doesn't

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

onsdag den 28. august 2019 kl. 02.56.13 UTC+2 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:29:05 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
onsdag den 28. august 2019 kl. 02.22.43 UTC+2 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:49:55 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:18:09 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

I'm appalled SCOTUS reversed the long standing precedent
and is allowing the taxes to be collected at all.

I don't begrudge the state its revenue. That's where
we live, and most of the important things government
does is state based, not federal government based.
States are perennially short of critical funds for
infrastructure, transportation, education, etc.


--
Thanks,
- Win

I don't disagree with that, but it's wrong for a state to
be able to tax someone who does not live in that state, and
who has no vote, no representation to appeal to.

The purpose of sales tax should be to repay the seller's state
for the cost of its vital services and infrastructure used in
producing the product.

The buyer's state contributed nothing to the labors of production,
and shouldn't have any claim on the fruits.

James, what's the difference if I go down to my local hardware store
and buy some screw made in China, vs buying it on amazon?
I think I could argue that the amazon order puts more 'wear and tear' on
my state. (It certainly puts more wear and tear on my long gravel driveway. :^)

If your state wants to tax purchases and the voters approve, I suppose
they could go ahead and do that. But that's not a sales tax imposed
on someone out of state, that would be a purchase tax imposed by a
state on their own citizens.
Hmm, James you are smart enough to argue rings around me... my head spins.
(Have pity.)
The above is a 'sales tax'... that to me is the same as a 'tax on purchases'.
If you come into my state, buy said Chinese screw from 'my' hardware store we
collect a sales tax on you.. an out of stater.

That's fine. A state has jurisdiction inside its boundaries and can
have whatever taxes it wants to. If an out-of-stater comes to NY and
buys something in NY, he has to follow NY's rules.

But Rick's referring to a Supreme Court decision that states can require
out-of-state sellers living elsewhere, to collect and remit sales tax to
the buyer's state.

So I thought we were talking about that -- you mail-order something
from Oklahoma, and New York makes Mom-n-Pop(tm) in Oklahoma collect
New York sales tax from you, and send the money to New York. Mom-n-Pop
in Oklahoma now has to act as tax collector for New York.


so it is the same rules for everyone, if you want to sell stuff in New York
you collect and pay tax in New York

so you can't just move the business address to a low tax state and unfairly compete with those who doesn't

I think that's a good thing -- how is that unfair? If New York
makes business untenable, why shouldn't someone be able to move,
and why should New York be able to tax someone who moved away to
escape their mistreatment?

they are free to move, just can't do business in New York without following
the rules of New York

 

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:29:05 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

onsdag den 28. august 2019 kl. 02.22.43 UTC+2 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:49:55 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:18:09 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

I'm appalled SCOTUS reversed the long standing precedent
and is allowing the taxes to be collected at all.

I don't begrudge the state its revenue. That's where
we live, and most of the important things government
does is state based, not federal government based.
States are perennially short of critical funds for
infrastructure, transportation, education, etc.


--
Thanks,
- Win

I don't disagree with that, but it's wrong for a state to
be able to tax someone who does not live in that state, and
who has no vote, no representation to appeal to.

The purpose of sales tax should be to repay the seller's state
for the cost of its vital services and infrastructure used in
producing the product.

The buyer's state contributed nothing to the labors of production,
and shouldn't have any claim on the fruits.

James, what's the difference if I go down to my local hardware store
and buy some screw made in China, vs buying it on amazon?
I think I could argue that the amazon order puts more 'wear and tear' on
my state. (It certainly puts more wear and tear on my long gravel driveway. :^)

If your state wants to tax purchases and the voters approve, I suppose
they could go ahead and do that. But that's not a sales tax imposed
on someone out of state, that would be a purchase tax imposed by a
state on their own citizens.
Hmm, James you are smart enough to argue rings around me... my head spins.
(Have pity.)
The above is a 'sales tax'... that to me is the same as a 'tax on purchases'.
If you come into my state, buy said Chinese screw from 'my' hardware store we
collect a sales tax on you.. an out of stater.

That's fine. A state has jurisdiction inside its boundaries and can
have whatever taxes it wants to. If an out-of-stater comes to NY and
buys something in NY, he has to follow NY's rules.

But Rick's referring to a Supreme Court decision that states can require
out-of-state sellers living elsewhere, to collect and remit sales tax to
the buyer's state.

So I thought we were talking about that -- you mail-order something
from Oklahoma, and New York makes Mom-n-Pop(tm) in Oklahoma collect
New York sales tax from you, and send the money to New York. Mom-n-Pop
in Oklahoma now has to act as tax collector for New York.


so it is the same rules for everyone, if you want to sell stuff in New York
you collect and pay tax in New York

so you can't just move the business address to a low tax state and unfairly compete with those who doesn't

I think that's a good thing -- how is that unfair? If New York
makes business untenable, why shouldn't someone be able to move,
and why should New York be able to tax someone who moved away to
escape their mistreatment?

And why is New York owed for something that happened in another state?
What claim does New York have on that?

Tax competition between jurisdictions is important. If taxes in a
state (or country) get too high, people move. That helps keep taxes
lower and local governments efficient.

If a New Yorker moves to Berlin, should vendors all across Germany
legally have to collect and remit New York sales tax to New York
for every purchase the New Yorker makes living abroad?

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

Rick C wrote...

I'm appalled SCOTUS reversed the long standing precedent
and is allowing the taxes to be collected at all.

I don't begrudge the state its revenue. That's where
we live, and most of the important things government
does is state based, not federal government based.
States are perennially short of critical funds for
infrastructure, transportation, education, etc.

I don't think I said anything to indicate I begrudge the state due revenue. The issue is this is NEW revenue they had never collected before. Revenues from sales taxes in the US have increased every year since 1994 other than 2009 which was in the depth of the great recession. So how can anyone say the states were "begrudged" sales tax revenue? It's not like the mail order exclusion was new. This was money they've never collected and they had no entitlement to receive which SCOTUS agreed some decades ago. Originally the matter was decided based on consideration of Constitutional issues. Now it's a matter of technology.

It's more like the states were getting fruit from the part of a tree in the neighbor's yard that over hung their year. Now they've figured out how to eat more of the fruit by using ropes to bend the whole tree to hang over their property.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[George Herold]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:22:43 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:49:55 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:18:09 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

I'm appalled SCOTUS reversed the long standing precedent
and is allowing the taxes to be collected at all.

I don't begrudge the state its revenue. That's where
we live, and most of the important things government
does is state based, not federal government based.
States are perennially short of critical funds for
infrastructure, transportation, education, etc.


--
Thanks,
- Win

I don't disagree with that, but it's wrong for a state to
be able to tax someone who does not live in that state, and
who has no vote, no representation to appeal to.

The purpose of sales tax should be to repay the seller's state
for the cost of its vital services and infrastructure used in
producing the product.

The buyer's state contributed nothing to the labors of production,
and shouldn't have any claim on the fruits.

James, what's the difference if I go down to my local hardware store
and buy some screw made in China, vs buying it on amazon?
I think I could argue that the amazon order puts more 'wear and tear' on
my state. (It certainly puts more wear and tear on my long gravel driveway. :^)

If your state wants to tax purchases and the voters approve, I suppose
they could go ahead and do that. But that's not a sales tax imposed
on someone out of state, that would be a purchase tax imposed by a
state on their own citizens.
Hmm, James you are smart enough to argue rings around me... my head spins.
(Have pity.)
The above is a 'sales tax'... that to me is the same as a 'tax on purchases'.
If you come into my state, buy said Chinese screw from 'my' hardware store we
collect a sales tax on you.. an out of stater.

That's fine. A state has jurisdiction inside its boundaries and can
have whatever taxes it wants to. If an out-of-stater comes to NY and
buys something in NY, he has to follow NY's rules.

But Rick's referring to a Supreme Court decision that states can require
out-of-state sellers living elsewhere, to collect and remit sales tax to
the buyer's state.

So I thought we were talking about that -- you mail-order something
from Oklahoma, and New York makes Mom-n-Pop(tm) in Oklahoma collect
New York sales tax from you, and send the money to New York. Mom-n-Pop
in Oklahoma now has to act as tax collector for New York.

Huh, OK. It seems like there is a lot more amazon than mom &
pops. Can they send some attachment to the sale that says you the
receiver has to pay your local sales taxes?
That's how it has been, I'm mostly happy that Amazon collects and
pays my NYS sales tax. I use to have to guesstimate and give 'em
~0-50 bucks.

If you are meaning something else here I'd need a lot more words to understand the
distinction. I think below you are talking about a value added tax.
I haven't thought much about VAT's. (I really haven't thought much about taxes
mostly just grin and pay 'em.)

It doesn't appeal much to me, but if New York wants to do that that's
up to them and their voters.

To me, the producer should reap the rewards of his labor, and be
responsible for the costs, too. That's the seller, and the seller's
state.

If your state had nothing to do with producing the product, why
do they deserve a share of the result?

Isn't this a VAT and not a sales tax?

VAT's another topic.

Grin. James, this is totally OT, but I was listening to this
liberal anti gun guy talk about the 2nd amd. And he totally
repeated your 'what the framers' wanted. Local militias were
the 'balance' to any federal army, and they were worried about
some federal taking over.

More critically, there's a question of federalism. Should state 'A'
be able to impose laws obliging other states' citizens beyond its
borders, requiring citizens of 49 other states to, for example, collect
taxes for them?

That seems abundantly clear: no.
Well the states rights discussion is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Why can't you stick with my simple example? Chinese made screw sold by
local hardware store and amazon. They should be able to compete equally.
Giving amazon a tax advantage seems to disadvantage my local guy.

I don't think so -- the mail-order guy has to pay shipping. That's a
big handicap. (I need a 5k potentiometer, but I'm not willing to pay
$7 shipping + $1 to get a $1 part.)

huh? amazon prime! I've got 2 kids and a wife, I'm not sure
but easy more than 100 shipments per year, two days, for
$100? (I think it went up some.)
I sent Phil, strippers for his B-day, it cost me nothing in my
books for shipping... Amazon prime is a bit crazy, and I can't
imagine it lasting for long.

And the local in-state can sell over the internet too, if he wants to.
There's nothing stopping him. Why not set up a website and do both?

I like local businesses and I try to buy stuff from them, even if
it's a little more. I value their efforts. I want small businesses
to stay around, too.

The internet is one of the greatest opportunities for them, ever,
though. Making the scrappy one-horse outfits collect internet sales
tax for all 50 states and the 1,000's of counties of all of their
customers is a terrible development. I don't know what SCOTUS
was thinking.

Well, I can ask my local shop owners, but I think not.
Their business is local, installing parts some guy bought on
amazon is not what they want to do. The local guy I know
says he'll install whatever, but there is no guarantee/ warranty
on mail order parts.

(And I want my local guy to stay around, I'm happy to pay his mark-up,
and do business with him, for the convenience of running over there on
a Saturday morning to buy said Chinese screw to fix whatever is broken
that day.) In this electronic age it's not at all clear to me in what state
the sale of a screw on amazon takes place?

That's taxing the seller without representation. It robs the seller's
state of rightful revenue from a product the seller's state was used
to help to create.

And state 'A', passing laws imposing duties on state 'B's citizens
outside of its borders, is asserting sovereignty over 'B's citizens.
That violates state 'B's sovereignty -- they get to preside over
their citizens. State 'B' and its citizens get to decide their
own taxes, and the duties of its citizens.

State 'A' extending its laws past its borders defeats the purpose of
having states, it defeats the Constitution's guarantee

"to every State ... a Republican Form of Government" (Art. IV, sec. 4)

(that is, each state is guaranteed a representative form of government,
with representatives of their local choosing).

If your government / country / state played no role in the planting
of the wheat, the harvesting, the milling, or the baking of the loaves,
what exactly is their claim to Henny-Penny's (The Little Red Hen) bread?

The above is all worthy of discussion, but seems to have little to do with sales
taxes. I have to pay sales tax on my car, even if it's a used car purchased
from a private citizen! I have no love of taxes.

I was speaking to the issue of states imposing their sales taxes and
the duty of collecting those taxes on people who physically reside
and are conducting their portion of the transaction in other states.

Yeah sorry, my bad. I don't know of this decision.
Can't you just send some 'extra' bit of paper work that says
you have to pay local taxes, or be subject to the local fines?
That's how it use to be here, there's a line item for 'out of
state purchases'.. I'm not saying NYS is sane tax-wise, but they figure
they get a piece of whatever you spend anywhere..
well you can buy stocks and bonds and such.

If you buy a used car in your state, naturally you owe sales tax. That's
how states pay for the services they provide. That's fair and
proportionate -- you used a bit of your state's services to make
and sell whatever it was you sold. They deserve part of the revenue.

Hmm, OK. but you can sell some things. Like a house, and pay no
sales tax.

But if you make a purchase in another state, then your state had no
part in it. The purchase (and any tax) should be governed by the
other state; your state shouldn't have any stake or say in that.

Hah, come to NYS. I had to pay some sort of sales tax,
on value, of the several vehicles I brought up from TN.
(It wasn't a lot of tax, they were older models...
some of my favorite rides!)

George H.

George H.

SCOTUS botched this one badly, IMO.


Cheers,
James Arthur

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2019-08-27, Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:32:42 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

Does Aliexpress do the same? I guess they
could also have physical presence.

Really, why?

I don't know, but why else would they be collecting the tax? How could US law be binding on foreign companies with no US presence?

Could be a treaty.



--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.