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?"

10 of 856 comments (clear)

  1. Isnt' against federal law? by BoomerSooner · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't it against federal law to tax interstate commerce? Plus if you bought them via the internet the fed's have specifically made it a "no tax zone".

    Love stupid the taxes

  2. RE: by rdilallo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This seems dangerous to consumers. States can, at any time, subpoena Amazon.com and other online suppliers to regard tax revenue? What's the statue of limitations on this? Most states are hard up for tax dollars right now, and this could be one very scary way for states to generate revenue. Just a thought...

  3. Not Long At All by Kefaa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I do not want to pay sales tax on out of state items, each year on my state tax return there is the box to make my own claim. Each year I make my contribution so I can legally sign that I have represented all taxes owed.

    In a way, people have abused the ignorance of the system. If you live in a state, like mine, that requires you pay and you do not, don't complain when they catch you. You committed tax fraud. If you don't like it, have the law changed.

    People who complain about this amuse me. Would you complain if the police pulled you over for doing 70 mph through a school zone? But no one gets hurt when I don't pay you say. I disagree that money was planned for allocation somewhere and someone else will be making it up in raised taxes elsewhere.

    But please don't get me started about useless spending of our tax dollars. I could not agree more.

  4. At $2500/year a P.O. Box Presents a Viable Option by vortex2.71 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At $2500 per year for a pack a day habit a P.O. box at a private place (like the UPS store) and a preloaded Visa grift card would present a viable altenative. Wow thats something like $6.80 a pack and P.O. boxes only run about $10 a month. Its the same old story whether their talking about movies, songs or cigarettes... People have always pirated the stuff, but "the internet has maid it so easy to do" so the powers that be are freaking out with reactive litigation instead of responding with new law that incorporates new technology.

  5. Different ... or is it? by jdreed1024 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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?"

    I'd like to say that this is a little different, but I'm not fully confident that's true. From what I can tell, there was an explicit law preventing sale in the state of cigarette packs that did not contains a stamp proving the taxes were paid.

    But now I'm not so sure. Several states (including good old Taxachusetts) get very grumpy about "use tax" (what you're supposed to pay if you purchased something in another state and didn't pay sales tax), and occasionally go after people. Usually, however, they don't do that unless it's a big ticket item (car, boat, etc). The state was losing a lot of money on cigarette tax (much, much more than sales tax on the same amount), which is what motivated them in this case.

    If the state was to go after everyone who purchased a few books from Amazon, they'd be so overwhelmed with paperwork, it wouldn't be worth their while. Then again, Amazon keeps selling more and more expensive things tax-free (I got a $1900 radial arm saw in my Gold Box a while back), so maybe it'll happen.

    --
    There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
  6. Re:To federal court or bust by blcknight · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Massachusetts has a state use tax. Anything bought and used in the state is taxed at 5% -- same as the sales tax, just with a different name.

    However, there's an alternative to paying it. There's a "safe harbor" provision that says if you pay a certain fixed amount based on your income, they won't come knocking on your door to check what you bought with one exception. The "safe harbor" only applies to items under $1,000. If you buy 150 widgets for $999 apeice at seperate times, you're fine, you can pay $15 "safe harbor" tax if you make under 40,000 (or $0 if you make under 25,000).

    Confused yet?

    http://www.massdor.com/help/guides/abate_amend/P er sonal/issues/Usetax.htm

  7. Re:To federal court or bust by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sure you're aware of this (your post seemed pretty well informed) but: Michigan Use Tax

    As far as I know, every state has something like this. Most folks don't pay tax for Internet purchases, but some companies (Best Buy, for one) already applies tax based on where you live. You are supposed to report and pay tax on all goods purchased from out of state.

    Given the costs of shipping (and the time it takes to deliver), I think Internet shopping can only survive if there is no sales/use tax. If I have to pay tax and shipping, I simply won't buy online.

    On the other hand, it's in the state's best interest to apply that tax - not only for the immediate tax revenue, but also creating incentive for people to shop in-state.

  8. spooky actually... by webgodjj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok.. So this really isn't about cigarettes.. and it isn't about how the consumers got cigarettes. Read inbetween the lines here.. All States are suffering because the feds have cut their funds. They are trying ANY way to make more money. This is just a test case for this State. Like it or not, if this goes smoothly without opposition, the WILL start taxing every internet purchase. Don't think this taxing everything under the sun is getting out of control? Take California as a good example. For years they have been pushing their citizens to drive less, drive fuel efficent cars, and or use fuel alternatives. This actually SAVED them money becuase their is less pollutin = less sickness. Now they want to tax cars by the mile using GPS because "hey, we are loosing SALES TAX on gas! Forget the fact that these smaller cars probably rip up the road much less than a large gas guggling truck. Forget the idea that it was their idea that consumers should drive smaller and more efficient cars. And dear god, forget that this will also save in health bills throughout the state. Then again.. I ramble... :)

  9. Re:No free trade within the US? by phuturephunk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've lived in New York for most of my life and I've NEVER heard of that happening. I'd like some supporting proof of that.

    Actually, I call bullshit on that completely. The only ways to get to NY from Jersey (which has a controllable border and has tax amnesty on various goods you'd want to buy like clothes..CT doesn't count because you can get through to Westchester 100 different ways) are from the Tappan Zee (by way of the GSP or 287), GWB, Lincoln Tun, Holland Tun, the Goethalls Bridge via 278 to the verrazano or the Outerbridge crossing down at the south end of SI. All of those routes are major interstate routes and it'd be nigh impossible to mess with already painfull holiday traffic to shake down people for their Christmas presents.

    If the cops did that, you'd see Blue and whites being thrown of the George Washington Bridge by angry commuters.

  10. A rose by any other name... by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Regardless of how the states try to phrase it, it most certainly still *is* a sales tax. It is the state's way of collecting taxes that they did not get because you went outside of the borders. (Oh, you evil person!) You do not pay "use taxes" on items that you did *not* purchase outside of the state's borders because use taxes are based on the price that you paid to acquire the item; therefore, it is a sales tax. But because states cannot force other states' business entities to collect taxes, they have used this "use tax" as an excuse.

    It is, in effect, nothing more than punishing citizens of a state for daring to purchase items in places other than that particular state. This is offensive is way that cannot possibly be described in mere words.

    Taxes on interstate commerce are forbidden as per U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, which states...

    No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    A "use tax" is nothing more than a euphemism importation duty. I don't know of any law that has ever gone through the U.S. Congress that allows duties of one state to another, thereby making "use taxes" in violation of the above clause at the current time.

    Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but this is one of those things that I've done a lot of research on. I want desperately to shove this in the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue's every time they ask about this during income tax time.

    --
    The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.