Slashdot Mirror
Online Cigarette Customers Get Bill from State
wakebrdr writes "The Michigan Treasury Department has sent bills to state residents who purchased cigarettes online to avoid Michigan's high taxes. One pack-a-day smoker received a bill for $2,500 in back taxes. If a simple subpoena of customer data allows them to easily go after lost cigarette taxes, how long until state treasuries across the country subpoena Amazon.com or other big online retailers to collect unpaid sales taxes?"
The cigarette tax pursuit is aided by a 1947 FEDERAL law specifically geared towards tobacco that authorizes states to use these measures to subpoena records from other states. I don't think officials trying to collect state sales taxes would have that authority.
NOTE: I'm going from memory from an NPR story I heard on the way in this morning. 1947 may not be accurate.
It isn't a 'sales tax' it's a 'use tax'.
The back of my Illinois tax form has had a 'Use Tax' form forever. You're supposed to pay it for all items purchased outside of the state.
There is nothing new about this - it's been around as long as mail-order has. It only become a big deal since the Internet made it a lot easier to do it.
I remember when I was a kid (1960's) that states were making a big deal about mail-order catalog companies not paying sales tax...
From TFA:
It is illegal to bring any cigarettes into Michigan from other states unless by licensed sellers who pay the appropriate tax. People who bring less than $50 in cigarettes don't face penalties. Michigan requires that cigarettes sold in the state have a stamp attached to the pack to signify the payment of taxes.
This is not uncommon, most states claim the right to tax things purchased outside of the state and will be used primarily within their own.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
"It is illegal to bring any cigarettes into Michigan from other states unless by licensed sellers who pay the appropriate tax."
This has nothing to do with taxes on purchases from Amazon or similar online retailers.
The Jenkins Act requires anyone who sells cigarettes into any state, to report those sales to each state monthly. This would include your name and order information. Native Americans are exempt from the Jenkins Act because they are independent nations under their federal treaties.
This is correct. It's not a tax made on the sale of the article, but rather on its use/consumption. Several years ago, I bought a car in Illinois, but paid no sales tax there because I was in the U.S. military and was on my way to my next duty station in Florida (yeah, I know, real rough duty!!). So when I went to get a Florida license plate, I was required to pay Florida's "use tax" in order to title the car and get the plate. The "use tax" was at the same percentage rate as the sales tax for Florida on a new car, but was not a tax on the sale of the item, only a tax on its use in the state of Florida. Anyhow, it worked out O.K. in this case personally as the tax amount turned out to be less than any sales tax that would have accrued in Illinois. The point is, that for better or worse, it's necessary to understand the sometimes subtle differences when discussing a subject.
1) The taxes here are not sales taxes, they are CIGARETTE taxes, which are excise taxes. Excise taxes are not exempted by interstate commerce
2) Sales taxes are only exempt if the vendor of the purcased item does NOT have a business entity in the state where the purchaser lives.
3) Sales taxes can be levied by your home state, regardless of whether the transaction is interstate, if the state of purchase does not levy its own sales tax. (Example is PA-DE - no sales tax in DE, so PA can tax things you drive to DE to buy to avoid sales tax)
The Internet tax ban is on discriminatory taxes--taxes that only apply to Internet-based sales--and also tax on use of the Internet itself. Use taxes already apply to almost all Internet-based interstate transactions, just as they have always applied to catalog/mail-order sales. There's nothing unconstitutional about them. (What is probably unconstitutional is the federal government collecting tax on interstate commerce, or perhaps states levying discriminatory taxes against interstate commerce--that is, state-level import/export taxes. I'm not an expert in the Constitution or in tax law.)
The reason you currently don't pay a state or local tax on transactions where the seller does not have a physical presence in your state, is not because the tax itself is unconstitutional, but because it's an undue burden on the seller to have to figure out the intensely complicated state and local tax rates for everyone in the country. At least, this was the case almost 40 years ago when the US Supreme Court decided this (google for National Bella Hess, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue of Illinois (1967)). So you actually do owe tax for every purchase, Internet or otherwise (unless you live in a state without sales/use tax)--it's just not legal for the state to require the seller to collect the tax, and it's not practical for the state to come after you.
Plenty of people are trying to change this sorry state of affairs, because as you say, the Internet wasn't around when the rules were made. The main approach seems to be to simplify the state and local sales tax codes across the country, so it would no longer be an undue burden on retailers to calculate the appropriate tax, and Bella Hess could be overturned. 1, 2, 3.