Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Botches Sales Tax, Overcharges NJ
Hodejo1 writes "On July 1 Amazon started to charge sales tax to NJ residents, which is 7% in the state. But something was not right when I attempted to buy a book for my daughter. Just as I was about to finalize the order I noticed the charges were way off. The book cost $8.09. The tax I was to be levied was $0.85. That's a 10.5% tax rate! Why am I being charged 10.5%? It turns out that Amazon is also charging me tax on the $3.99 cost of shipping and handling. That's a problem, because New Jersey does not tax shipping and handling as I confirmed on the state's web site. I then checked a purchase I made from Amazon on October 7th of this year. Guess what? I was taxed on the $13.50 shipping and handling charge for that order. Now it is very possible — probable most likely — that this is nothing more than a coding error on Amazon's site. But it's a whopper! Just consider the hundreds-of-millions of dollars in sales Amazon makes in New Jersey each year. These extra dimes add up very quickly. Has Amazon been overcharging NJ residents' sales tax since July? If so, why haven't they picked it up by now?"
What do you think the "only pay for shippig&handling, nevermind its more than the product" scams are about? just another tax dodge in the land of tax dodgers.
What about this nj law
As of October 1, 2006, the exemption for delivery charges imposed by the seller is repealed for taxable goods and services. For deliveries on and after October 1, 2006, if a shipment includes both taxable and exempt property, the seller should allocate the delivery charge based on either the total sales price or the total weight, and collect tax on the portion of the delivery charge allocated to the taxable goods. In such mixed transactions, if the seller does not allocate the delivery charge, the entire delivery charge is taxable.
It's because S&H is taxable in NJ.
From http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/emailfaqs.shtml
Are shipping and handling subject to sales tax?
Effective October 1, 2005, the law provides for a new definition of "delivery charges." For transactions occurring on or after October 1, 2005, handling charges are included within the definition of delivery charges, and are therefore exempt from tax whether or not they are separately stated to the purchaser.
Prior to October 1, 2005, a separately stated charge for the transportation (shipping) of tangible personal property from the vendor to the customer was not subject to New Jersey sales tax. Depending on the circumstances, a separately stated “handling” charge could be considered part of the taxable receipt (amount on which sales tax is due) because it occurs prior to actual shipment. However, when “shipping and handling” charges were billed together, both amounts were considered exempt transportation charges for New Jersey sales tax purposes.
As of October 1, 2006, the exemption for delivery charges imposed by the seller is repealed for taxable goods and services. For deliveries on and after October 1, 2006, if a shipment includes both taxable and exempt property, the seller should allocate the delivery charge based on either the total sales price or the total weight, and collect tax on the portion of the delivery charge allocated to the taxable goods. In such mixed transactions, if the seller does not allocate the delivery charge, the entire delivery charge is taxable.
Posted by timothy
from the insult-to-injury dept.
The insult is that I read another stupid post from timothy.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
You're lucky! Maryland taxes you on rain.
Maryland State Motto: If you can dream it, we can tax it.
As several people have pointed out Amazon appears to be applying the correct sales tax. The fact that the resident of NJ doesn't understand his own sales tax demonstrates how complex sales tax can be. Every state, county, and city can have their own sales tax laws which have to all be correctly applied based upon arbitrary characteristics. A state can have a tax rate of 4% with an additional 3% for prepared foods and then a city in that state could have a 2% tax on sugary treats. What counts as a prepared food or sugary treat? That will vary just as much and may not even follow common sense, tomatoes have even been legally defined as vegetables for tax reasons.
A national sales tax could make a lot things a lot simpler but would force states to relinquish a lot of power as every business that could use the national sales tax instead of the local taxes would. States with high sales tax would see a large revenue drop while residents of states without a sales tax would be penalized. I could see brick and mortar stores jumping through hoops to selectively use the lower tax rate, if the local tax rate is higher then the national one they'd "order" the item for the customer and then "deliver" it from the backroom.
The best solution I can see is if the federal government runs a sales tax database that every retailer can query. The retailer submits the location, price, item, and some relevant descriptors: "luxury", "food", "service", "book" and the API spits back what the sales tax should be for the item. It's then beholden to the states to keep their relevant data updated. The states would be limited in how creative their sales taxes could be as the software would need to support it but the states wouldn't need to cede power to the federal government.
I am somewhat confused. I thought only filthy free market capitalists wanted to pay lower taxes.
As a fithy free market capitalist (FFMC), let me chime in. We FFMCs do indeed believe in lower taxes, but we also believe in sensible taxes. Taxes should be simple, fair, difficult to avoid, and should not inhibit economic growth and prosperity. So taxes on income and labor and the worst, taxes on revenue are better, taxes on property or consumption are better still, and taxes on things you want to discourage are the best of all. If you look at the things we tax in America, it would be difficult to design a dumber tax system. Most taxes are on production or profits (income tax and payroll tax), and we have some of the lowest consumption taxes in the developed world. So we end up with millions unemployed at the same time we run up trillions in deficits because we don't produce enough to satisfy our consumption levels. That is a symptom of a broken system. Unfortunately, sensible tax reform isn't even on the political horizon.
"But it's a whopper! Just consider the hundreds-of-millions of dollars in sales Amazon makes in New Jersey each year."
Wouldn't that be NJ making it?
How do you know they're aren't dutifully recording it all (Amazon) and handing it over to NJ?
In most (all?) states where sales tax is collected, any excess sales tax collected must be refunded to the customer or turned over to the state -- the company doesn't get to keep it.
The problem with Checks and Balances, a diverse economy, and a population that really engages in politics is that all big changes are nigh-impossible to enact. If Obama proposed a tax reform that conservative intellectuals loved, for example replacing the income tax with a national VAT, conservative Congressman would be unable to vote for it unless it also cut revenue. The engaged people who vote in GOP primaries are universally convinced ALL taxes are evil, and all taxes are equally evil, therefore any "tax reform" that makes the tax burden less painful without significantly cutting tax revenue is inherently evil. OTOH the Democrats couldn't vote for it unless it raised revenue. Their engaged people believe annoying the GOP's engaged people is the Highest Calling Available to Man. But Obama's a Democrat so he could probably bully some of them into at least considering it.
Then somebody who looks good on TV would claim the change will ruin them because they have a very carefully constructed life that allows them to dodge many income taxes, but the whole point of consumption taxes is you can't dodge them. You're actually seeing this with ObamaCare. Most of the people harmed by it, on TV, and from states with their own exchanges would find out that they'd get a better deal on insurance after ObamaCare. But they don't bother looking because they put like three whole hours into picking their current plan and nothing from the government could be cheaper.
And in the end it would die like Social Security reform did, or ObamaCare almost did, failing some important procedural vote nobody outside DC knew existed before it became the only story on CNN.
If we had the British system, PM Obama could replace the income tax with something new within six months. If the rank-and-file in either party managed to block him there'd be a new election, and either the blocking rank-and-file would become PM or they'd be voted out.
No, sales taxes are the most regressive form of taxation, that is they hit the poor the hardest. Interesting then, that the northeast Blue states all have high sales taxes and other regressive forms of taxation (like all the toll roads and bridges with insanely-high tolls).
Also, NJ is famous for the highest property taxes in the US. The reason for this is racism: every little municipality (there's ~550 of them) has its own separate school district and property tax. They refuse to merge the school districts into county-wide districts like most other states, because no one wants their town's school to be in the same school district as some poorer (mostly black) township or city on the other side of the county. The phrase "home rule" is used a lot here as a euphamism for the real reason no one wants consolidation. Interesting that the northeast liberals are the most racist people in the country.
So it seems that the submitter of this rant was entirely wrong, and sales tax does indeed apply to the delivery costs of taxable goods in NJ.
Will Hodejo1 or Timothy now hold their hands up, admit their mistake and promise to do better in future?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.