Slashdot Mirror


Tennessee to Tax Software as Property?

thatkidkel writes "The Chattanooga Times Free Press is reporting that 'a state board is proposing a sweeping change to make computer software used in business subject to property taxes, a move that some business leaders contend could drive up costs and hurt job growth in Tennessee.'"

13 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. Do we own it by achew22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does this mean that we (in Tennessee at least) own our software? Remember the software/game industry wanting us to beleive that we are just borrowing their code? This says their wrong! Or the tax wont go through. Either way I approve of this because it either legalizes buisnesses (or me claiming to be a buisness) to do what we want with their software (in Tennessee at least), or it will be deamed unreasonable because you don't own it. Win/Win who could loose?

    --
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Allen
    1. Re:Do we own it by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly.

      They didn't really do their homework on this one, did they. How do you tax a revokeable roight-to-use as property?

      Maybe they are taxing licenses: that's rich! Maybe they can tax the right to vote, and other abstractions as well.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    2. Re:Do we own it by MaggieL · · Score: 4, Informative

      How do you tax a revokeable roight-to-use as property?...Maybe they can tax the right to vote, and other abstractions as well.

      No more outlandish than the idea that an algorithm or a business method, or a gene sequence can be property. Of course, that's pretty outlandish.

      Heinlein fans among us will recall a passage in Stranger in a Strange Land describing a Tennessee statute setting the value of pi to be exactly 3. But Snopes tells us it was apparently the Indiana House of Representatives who unanimously passed a measure redefining the area of a circle and the value of pi.

      I have yet to see the politician who can resist a brand new source of revenue to pocket simply because "it's a bad idea" or "it makes no sense".

      --
      -=Maggie Leber=-
    3. Re:Do we own it by thogard · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When Microsoft owned software attacked my news server, they were claiming it wasn't their problem because it wasn't their software. I think they are going to have to take a stand on this issue at sometime.

    4. Re:Do we own it by keithmo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I leased a truck for 5 years. I had to pay property taxes on it. I tried the same "why should I pay property taxes on something I don't own" argument, but it fell on deaf ears.

    5. Re:Do we own it by PatrickThomson · · Score: 5, Informative
      GNU software actually followers the copyrightable method where the author(s) chooses to give up rights to his software.


      Sorry, you're wrong. I won't patronise you and explain how you're wrong, but I'd just like to say that it's innacurate simplifications like this that lead to the public mindset of GPL software as being "usable by anyone for any purpose", undermining its credibility in the public eye and leading to poorly-informed software companies infringing without realising and then trying to cover it up when they find out that 80% of the code they wrote is technically GPL.

      it's true what they say, the best way to get people to believe something is to repeat it incessantly. The GPL is by no means free code, or code that's given away. There's no monetary return, but there is a strict legal expectation of ideas flowing both ways. If you use it, one way or another, you'll pay. Of course, most of us are paying what we'd gladly share, under identical conditions.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
  2. Silver lining? by Red+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, if Tennessee taxes software as property... How do they determine the market value of Open Source
    software?

    If a business had the choice of buying MS Office AND then paying taxes for the fact that they own it OR installing OpenOffice or AbiWord and paying x% of it's purchase price, that might drive a few more enterprises to at least consider the option, where it can make easy changes.

    --
    "If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
    ~Epictetus
  3. Great for Open Source by desNotes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This could indeed be a big event for open source. If I was a small business owner in Tennessee I would definitely see a big benefit to open source (other than performance, innovation, etc.) by not having to pay additional taxes on it.

    --
    "Saying that Linux is inferior to Windows because more people use Windows is like saying that all restaurants are inferi
  4. But property can make someone money.... by Scorpion265 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really don't understand the reasoning behind this... I can understand a tax on actual physical property because one can gain equity on it, and in turn, turn a profit on a sale. You can't do this with software! How many businesses do you know sold their NT4 site liscense for a profit? Also one of the previous posters had a wonderful post about the implications for open source, how can you tax something that is free? I think that this will drive businesses away from Tennessee... Just my 2 cents anyway...

    --
    I am full of goo... black evil goo
  5. Yet another numbskull idea by Hypnocraze · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, being a TN resident, and seeing the current state of affairs jobs wise. I guess they are trying to drive even more businesses from TN. I understand their thoughts on it as a large number of folks are running businesses from their homes. Then when you couple that with the amount of money invested in a large corp network, it does become a significant chunk of change.

    The problem they are going to run into is, who is going to do the audits. All these audits are going to require man power with the technical knowledge to find ALL software a company uses. So now, how much does that substantial chunk of change amount to. Not near as much as they think. A skilled workforce capable of travelling and auditing every company is going to cost as much if not more.

    Lets try to wittle the number of required folks down further. Buy an auditing software system in which you will now be taxed on yet again. This sounds more like double taxation than anything else. First you pay the tax on the purchase of the software (TN does not have an income tax but does have a state sales tax,) Now you are going to have to pay an additional tax on that.

    Now on to the question, what if you use an open source software package that doesn't have a cost. How are they going to tax that? Oh wait, they can't. Now who is going to scream, the closed source devs. Open source is getting preferential treatment.

    This just is another reason why the US is falling behind, our educational system is nose diving. Our jails are filling up faster and faster. Could go into a huge rant on that alone, but suffice to say. I will be writing lots of letters.

  6. Re:chunk o' change! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative
    From The Fine Article:

    "This would be a significant chunk of change," said Hayes Ledford, the Chattanooga Area Chamber of Commerces director of public affairs.


    That pretty much seems to say it all when public officials view taxation as "significant chunks of change", rather than the basis for sustaining government and infrastructure.

    You might have a point if he actually was a public official. The chamber of commerce is a business organization, not an arm of the government. Their purpose is to help each other out, which sometimes includes lobbying the state, but that does not make any of them "public officials."

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  7. quite right by Quadraginta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good grief, yes. See, the reason the IQ 100 lawyers have been able to keep the IQ 130+ intellectuals under control throughout history is because intellectuals always think logical consistency is some kind of restraint on the law. The lawyers probably laugh themselves sick over that naive folly.

  8. he may be smarter than you think by Quadraginta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Politicians are smarter than you think. For example, this absurdity might just be stalking horse for a more normal tax increase. Think it through this way:

    Let's suppose the TN tax board says, uh oh, the state needs more money. But citizens are going to resist an ordinary tax increase on, say, property or cars. Well, not all citizens. Only the citizens who actually own property and cars -- e.g. middle-class and above, entrepreneurs, business-owners. How can we recruit them to support such a tax?

    Idea! Let's float some outrageous proposal about taxing some asset they use to generate their wealth. It needn't be a big tax, but just the idea that we're going to be poking our fingers into an area that has been blessedly free of Big Brother will make them freak. They'll think of all the new fees they'll have to pay accountants and lawyers and secretaries to figure out the right way to buy software and keep the records...

    Then, in about 6 weeks, we can drop the other shoe. Or, gentlemen, we could just have an ordinary tax increase, a small one -- what say you to that? Chorus of assent, along with sighs of relief...and the tax board smiles privately. Mission accomplished!