Supreme Court Declines Case On Making Online Retailers Collect Sales Taxes

All your tax avoidance schemes are done by WillAffleckUW · 2013-12-02 08:20 · Score: 1

Just a note, the UK is also going after tax avoiding, not just Italy, and the same goes for the US.

If you sold something, you pay taxes.

Nuff said.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-02 08:34 · Score: 1

Just a note, the UK is also going after tax avoiding, not just Italy, and the same goes for the US.
If you sold something, you pay taxes.
Nuff said.
Your claim is not 100% true.
The states of Oregon and New Hampshire in the United States do not collect sales tax.
NOW it's "nuff said", bitch.
He didn't specify sales taxes, and his point was about tax avoidance, bitch
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by WillAffleckUW · 2013-12-02 08:36 · Score: 1

Wrong. They have to collect sales taxes that apply. Washington State has a sales tax.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by WillAffleckUW · 2013-12-02 08:48 · Score: 2

Actually, no, VAT is collected at multiple points, by the producer/importer, the wholesaler, and the retailer. To avoid VAT avoidance.
At least in most countries.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 08:50 · Score: 5, Informative

"Just a note, the UK is also going after tax avoiding, not just Italy, and the same goes for the US. ... Nuff said."
No, NOT "nuff said". This is NOT ABOUT "avoiding taxes". It is about the sovereignty of states and their freedom from interference by other states. The U.S. is not the UK. Our government is organized very differently.

We have 50 independent States which have independent tax authority, and Point 1 here is that no State has authority to tax transactions that occur in another State. That would violate the latter State's sovereignty. Point 2 is that the Federal government has no authority to collect taxes on behalf of any State. We have 200 years of case law and prior legal decisions to back this up. (Which, I should add, the current Supreme Court seems to take pride in ignoring.)

In fact this was a hotly debated issue -- in court -- about 150 years ago, when mail-order businesses became popular. A person could send a check to somebody in another State, and that company would send the product to the buyer. When this happens, there is Point 3: the transaction is deemed to take place at the location of the business. That is the only workable way to do it: the transaction doesn't take place at the purchaser's location, because companies would have to keep track of tens of thousands of individual taxing districts throughout the country, and put up with tens of thousands of different sets of regulations concerning how to collect and distribute the taxes. That won't work. Even today, when computers could tell you what the taxes are, keeping track of how much tax to collect, and all the different reporting and payment requirements, would only be possible for giant corporations. Small companies would be out of business.

Point 4 is that Internet sales are mail order. The single difference is method of payment. Most people today buy via credit card rather than sending a check.

Point 5: The courts ruled that if the business has a "significant business nexus" within the purchaser's State (usually meaning a "physical presence" link a branch store or warehouse), the transaction can be deemed to take place in the purchaser's own state and is therefore subject to the sales taxes of that state. This is not unreasonable.

Point 5: To get around the "foreign transaction" problem, States came up with the idea of a "use tax". Since they have no authority to tax a transaction that takes place in another state, what they do is tax the purchaser for the use of the item they purchased elsewhere. The use tax is invariably the same amount as a sales tax would be, BUT it isn't a tax on the transaction, it is a tax on the use of the item within the resident's state. So it is legal.

Point 6: States must rely on people reporting their purchases in order to enforce the "use taxes", which many people do not do. In fact many people do not even know use taxes exist unless they purchase an automobile outside their state, in which case states pretty much know where you got it (because of licensing requirements) and will charge the use tax. However, that leads to

Point 7: Although States find it difficult to enforce use taxes on internet (mail order) purchases, difficulty of enforcing the law still does not change the fact that they have no authority to violate State sovereignty by taxing foreign transactions.

So that is a bit of history about how this actually works. The conclusion is Point 8: there is no lack of taxing power on internet (mail order) sales. It's just that the States find it difficult to enforce their use taxes. That is why they have been pushing for an (unconstitutional) "internet sales tax".

The very concept of an across-the-board "internet sales tax" is in fact a violation of our separation of powers. There is no legal basis for States to tax transactions that occur in other States. If they could do that, they could tax anything, anywhere. Texas could tax a transaction between an Ohio resident that occurs in Maryland. If that sounds ridiculous to you, that's because it is. There is simply no legal basis for any of this.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 08:55 · Score: 1

Corrections:

My point numbering got scrambled at 5. There are actually 9 points, not 8.

"link" should be "like".
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by cayenne8 · 2013-12-02 09:07 · Score: 1

Actually, no, VAT is collected at multiple points, by the producer/importer, the wholesaler, and the retailer. To avoid VAT avoidance.
We're talking about the US here, no such thing as a VAT.
Here each state can have its own taxes on different things...and within each state, often the city has tax laws too. They aren't uniform in one state much less the different states, so this is the problem for having an out of state entity try to figure out and collect sales tax for the multitude of tax laws across the US, it isn't really fair to put that burden on a company and would hinder them selling across state lines.
We're quite happy (so far) not to have a national sales tax, here you are a resident of your state first, THEN a resident of the US second.
Although, if they were to constitutionally ban/repeal federal income tax in trade for a federal VAT that might fly...but that wouldn't address the numerous state tax laws and needs so, it would be added onto what I'd described above.
We're set up here (originally) for most decisions and power to reside with the states, and even with the Federal govt growing in power, they still wield a good bit of independent power. The Feds for the most part on most things cannot order the States to do things directly.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 09:18 · Score: 1

There is a lot more going on here than "tax avoidance", bitch.

The main issue is that States have difficulty collecting their "use" taxes on out-of-state purchases (see my longer explanation above). In fact many people are not even aware that "use taxes" exist. That's not tax avoidance, it's simply tax ignorance.

But the main point is that States simply don't have any legal basis for taxing transactions that happen in another State. Period. That is a violation of our separation of powers.

In order to get around this, many States have been advocating an unconstitutional "internet sales tax", but they don't seem to realize what they'd be giving up in the process.

So there's a lot going on here other than mere "tax avoidance".
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 09:25 · Score: 1

"Wrong. They have to collect sales taxes that apply. Washington State has a sales tax."
The key phrase is "that apply." See my longer explanation above. No State has legal authority to tax a purchase in another state. So if a Washingtonian buys a book from a company in Maine (whether they do it in person or via mail order), Washington sales taxes do not apply.

There IS a tax on the item, though. The Washington resident is legally required to pay a "use tax" on the item, which (not so coincidentally) is the same amount as state sales tax. BUT it's a tax on the USE of the item, within the state. Not a tax on the transaction that happened in another state. That's why it's a legal tax.

However, states have trouble collecting use taxes, because they have to rely on people reporting what they bought, and paying taxes on it. That's why they've been trying to push an (illegal) "internet sales tax". The problem is that an internet sales tax violates our separation of powers. It would give states the power to tax transactions in other states... which is a brand-new taxation power prohibited by the Constitution. As it should be.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by DogDude · 2013-12-02 09:33 · Score: 1

That won't work. Even today, when computers could tell you what the taxes are, keeping track of how much tax to collect, and all the different reporting and payment requirements, would only be possible for giant corporations. Small companies would be out of business.

Yeah, that would be hard. It would require some sort of "automation" using some sort of "adding machine". Jeez, I wonder where online retailers would get such a device...

--
I don't respond to AC's.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by SirGarlon · 2013-12-02 09:39 · Score: 1

If you're use the highfaultin' eighteenth-century style and capitalize "state", then you should go all the way and use the long s.

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by mcmonkey · 2013-12-02 09:46 · Score: 2

But the main point is that States simply don't have any legal basis for taxing transactions that happen in another State. Period. That is a violation of our separation of powers.
1) This is not an issue separation of powers. SoP is between branches of government, not between states.
2) This case is not about taxing transaction that happen in another state. This is about who has to collect taxes and what constitutes a business presence in a state.
If I'm in state A and Amazon doesn't have a business presence in state A, then Amazon doesn't collect taxes for state A. But if Amazon has an affiliate or other partners in state A, is that enough to qualify as a business presence?
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Sesostris+III · 2013-12-02 09:48 · Score: 1

Interestingly, being in the UK and having bought stuff from the US (from Amazon), it is legitimate for the UK to 'tax' the purchase (VAT) as it comes into the country. If not already paid, the item is held (usually by the Post Office) until I (the purchaser) go and pay the tax.

(The fact that the tax was incorrectly applied as by UK law books and such are not subject to VAT, was neither here nor there. I had to apply - and got - a refund, but the principle was that the law applied where I was - the UK, and not where the 'transaction' took place - the US).

Of course, Amazon (US) is not obliged to collect taxes for the UK government on items bought by UK citizens. Then again, unlike New York State, it is possible for government agents (Customs and Excise) to check all items coming into the country.

I suppose the point I'm making is that it is about goods crossing a (state or national) boundary. That is the logical point of taxation. Therefore (according to this principle) Texas can only tax a transaction between a Ohio resident that occurs in Maryland, if the 'result' of that transactions ends up in Texas!

--
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by WillAffleckUW · 2013-12-02 09:49 · Score: 1

Read. The. Article. That. You. Are. Replying. To.
Translation: Yes, you do have to pay. Says SCOTUS. There are no appeals.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by AK+Marc · 2013-12-02 09:50 · Score: 1

They aren't uniform in one state much less the different states, so this is the problem for having an out of state entity try to figure out and collect sales tax for the multitude of tax laws across the US, it isn't really fair to put that burden on a company and would hinder them selling across state lines.
They aren't even consistent within any single legal entity. Dallas (city) will have different tax rates based on the county you are in. Dallas (county) will have different tax rates depending on the city you are in. So knowing the city or ZIP code will not allow proper tax calculation.

What should be done is to pass a law (or 50) that when the purchaser and the store are in different states, only state tax can be collected. That would fix a lot of the problems.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by mybecq · 2013-12-02 09:57 · Score: 1

The courts ruled that if the business has a "significant business nexus" within the purchaser's State (usually meaning a "physical presence" link a branch store or warehouse)
And by using affiliates as a sales force, a "significant business nexus" is established in the purchaser's State. Hence, they have to collect sales tax for the purchaser's State, because they pay a sales force there.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by jratcliffe · 2013-12-02 10:12 · Score: 1

(*) NH taxes are about 50% of California, but spends proportionally much more than 50% per person [kff.org]. California is simply inefficient at making use of taxes. The only way this could be true is if CA is running a massive surplus, or NH is running a massive deficit. If NH taxes per capita are 50% of CA levels, then spending needs to be as well, assuming that NH isn't just spending regardless of income.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by WillAffleckUW · 2013-12-02 10:21 · Score: 1

Technically, a city may not be larger than a county, so your example is moot. You may be confused with the different cities that are part of a multi-county Dallas (e.g. Arlington, or Fort Worth), or the difference between New York City and the other cities which you "call" New York City. If they're in a different county they are legally NOT the same city.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by buckles · 2013-12-02 10:52 · Score: 1

Jane Q has made some quite relevant points.
This is a power grab at the expense of small businesses. The states have long-failed at enforcing their use taxes.
Who is lined up for legislating this "fair tax" ? Amazon, WalMart, Governors, Municipalities, National Retailers who have nexus most everyplace anyway.
Against ? Ebay and small schmucks like me with one place of business.
This court action is now a little long in the tooth. Amazon has already folded in California.
Congress loves playing the States' benefactor.
We sell a product that has been sold by catalog for a very long time.
If a customer calls the 800 number, where does the sale occur ?
Our servers are in another state. Where does the sale occur?
A large percentage of our customers purchase our product for resale. They are responsible to collect the Local sales tax on their selling price, not purchase price.
In-state resellers must provide a kind of form that attests that they possess a valid "Sales and Use Tax Permit". No one can figure it out.
People mistakenly give us their Federal ID number, Drivers License number all kinds of stuff. We are responsible if audited as to why we did not collect sales tax on these transactions.
Multiply this by 45 states. So not only will small business like ours be collecting taxes for other States, but having to police the resale laws for these States when the taxes are NOT to be collected. Gives an advantage to in state vendors.
We recognize that we are probably on the losing side of this issue.
If Congress manages to pass this mess it would be nice if they would protect us newly minted tax collectors from incessant out-of-state audits.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by buckles · 2013-12-02 10:55 · Score: 1

You can purchase this tax reconciliation service from Amazon .
Just tell them who, where, when, what, how much, how often.
For a fee they will drive you out of business.
And tell you that its your own damn fault.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by AK+Marc · 2013-12-02 11:14 · Score: 1

Technically, a city may not be larger than a county, so your example is moot.

Dallas City extends into Collin, Denton, Kaufman, and Rockwall counties. Technically, you are an ignorant jackass. Correcting someone from something correct to something incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas,_Texas#Geography

And Dallas is not the only city that spans more than one county. It just happens to be the one I was born into.

Some cities align with county borders, but not all.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 11:37 · Score: 1

"Yeah, that would be hard. It would require some sort of "automation" using some sort of "adding machine". Jeez, I wonder where online retailers would get such a device..."
This is just stupid. Do you know how many different taxing districts there are in the U.S.? Do you know how often they change their regulations? Do you know what city X requires for reporting and pre-payment of estimated taxes, versus County Y in a different state?

It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 11:39 · Score: 1

Is there some reason you should capitalize Federal but not State?

The way our country is designed the Federal government is no more than a club formed by the independent States.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 11:44 · Score: 1

"but the principle was that the law applied where I was - the UK, and not where the 'transaction' took place - the US"
This has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. Our Federal government has the authority to regulate transactions made with foreign countries. It does NOT have the authority to collect taxes for the States.

Like I said, it has to do with how our country is designed. New York is an independent political entity, it is not a "sub-unit" of the United States, except for the particular powers the Federal government was given by the States to do on their behalf collectively.

New York has no more power to tax a transaction in Oregon than Afghanistan has to tax a transaction in London.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by DogDude · 2013-12-02 11:45 · Score: 1

Do you know how small businesses handle payroll taxes now? Do you know how often the rules change? Do you know how much has to be deducted from each person at each time in every different situation? No? Neither do I. That's why small businesses pay a service to take care of all of this. There are also services that will handle all of the sales tax rules, as well. It isn't rocket science.

--
I don't respond to AC's.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 11:46 · Score: 1

"And by using affiliates as a sales force, a "significant business nexus" is established in the purchaser's State. Hence, they have to collect sales tax for the purchaser's State, because they pay a sales force there."
And your point is? I already explained this, and we know that the courts claimed there was a significant business nexus there. My whole explanation was about why an "internet sales tax" is unconstitutional.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 11:53 · Score: 1

"If Congress manages to pass this mess it would be nice if they would protect us newly minted tax collectors from incessant out-of-state audits."
Don't forget that small businesses are not the only issue here. Many States don't seem to realize what they'd be giving up: their political Sovereignty. This would not be just "a foot in the door" for loss of States' rights, it would be a gigantic elephant leg, with lots of elephant (and Donkey) poop to go with it.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 12:00 · Score: 1

"Do you know how small businesses handle payroll taxes now? Do you know how often the rules change?"
Yes, I do.

"Do you know how much has to be deducted from each person at each time in every different situation?"
Yes, I do. (Actually, nothing. The Federal government cannot force companies to withhold employees' taxes. Although they do their best to convince them they do.)

"That's why small businesses pay a service to take care of all of this. There are also services that will handle all of the sales tax rules, as well. It isn't rocket science."
Now take that service, and multiply it by 50. (Actually, multiply it by a few thousand, because that's how many individual taxing districts there are in the U.S.)

Do you think that service would charge you the same? Or do you think it's more reasonable to expect they'll charge you 50 (or a few thousand) times as much, since they have to do 50 (or a few thousand) times as much work?
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by DogDude · 2013-12-02 13:49 · Score: 1

Payroll tax updates are a whopping $180/year. (http://payroll.intuit.com/) Even if sales tax updates are more expensive, its still not a burden. Probably less than most hosting plans, actually. And, I'll be willing to bet good money that it'll be built right into most major eCommerce platforms as well.

--
I don't respond to AC's.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Ksevio · 2013-12-02 16:33 · Score: 1

Point 3: the transaction is deemed to take place at the location of the business. That is the only workable way to do it: the transaction doesn't take place at the purchaser's location, because companies would have to keep track of tens of thousands of individual taxing districts throughout the country, and put up with tens of thousands of different sets of regulations concerning how to collect and distribute the taxes. That won't work. Even today, when computers could tell you what the taxes are, keeping track of how much tax to collect, and all the different reporting and payment requirements, would only be possible for giant corporations. Small companies would be out of business.
There's software that does it - even a small business can do it. What a small business can't do as easily as a large one is "relocate" its headquarters to a state with no sales tax (rent a one room office with mailing address there).
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by hoeferbe · 2013-12-02 16:36 · Score: 1

DogDude wrote:

Even if sales tax updates are more expensive, its still not a burden.
Spoken like someone who doesn't have to bear that burden him or herself...
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 16:50 · Score: 1

"Payroll tax updates are a whopping $180/year."

"Spoken like someone who doesn't have to bear that burden him or herself..."
And also spoken like someone who doesn't appreciate that we're talking about sales taxes, not payroll taxes, and they've have to be updated all the time, not just once a year.

And also spoken like someone who doesn't appreciate that $180 / 50 states equals $3.60 per state. No big deal. But $3.60 x 2,800 taxing districts = $10,080.00.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 17:10 · Score: 1

"There's software that does it - even a small business can do it. What a small business can't do as easily as a large one is "relocate" its headquarters to a state with no sales tax (rent a one room office with mailing address there)."
Please show me a software product that keeps track of all of the thousands of sales tax districts in the US. I have never heard of such.

Keep in mind that sales taxes aren't always just State taxes. My City and County also impose sales taxes. The sales tax is different here than it is just outside the city limits.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 17:14 · Score: 1

I should have added: it's not just the taxes in all those districts... it's the compliance regulations.

In some areas, estimated taxes have to be pre-paid by businesses. Often it is quarterly. Other places no doubt it is semi-annually. Other places might require estimate forms but not pre-payments. Etc.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 17:15 · Score: 1

"Out of curiosity, from Point 1, how are states then allowed to tax vehicles purchased out of state (e.g. purchased in Ohio, new owner lives in New York)?"
I explained that later. It's a "use" tax. It's not a sales tax.

It might not seem like a big difference to you because it's the same amount. But it is a very big difference, indeed. A use tax is Constitutional.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 17:20 · Score: 1

"Okay, but you're flirting with sounding like a hick when you emphasize that too much. There is more in common between Alaska and Florida than the Netherlands and Belgium. Or Cambodia and Vietnam. Live a little, eh?"
WHOOSH

"Similarities" don't make a damned bit of difference in this context. They are separate political entities, just like -- believe it or not -- Cambodia and Belgium. Alaska has no more lawful authority to tax a purchase made in Florida than Cambodia has authority to tax a purchase made in Belgium! That's the law. No matter how "similar" they are.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 17:28 · Score: 1

"Just as in that example, the notion that a state could tax a transaction that occured between 2 different that it didn't even have any part of is ludricrous."
Just as I wrote to someone else here: WHOOSH. You aren't getting the point.

A State has no legal authority to tax another State. There is no legal basis for them to do so. Allowing one State to tax transactions in another State would violate a good many laws, and the Constitution.

My point was: if they can pass laws that have no legal or Constitutional basis in this case, what's to stop them from doing it again? They could decide to tax anything, anywhere, and it would not be any less legal than what they did in the former case.

So it would be setting an astounding precedent for lawlessness. If they could pass that law, they could pass any law they want. Constitution bedamned. I'm not necessarily saying they would do that, but they could do that. Because if they can ignore the laws in the first case, they can do it in the second.

Is that what you want?
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-12-02 17:37 · Score: 1

"Yes, in the case of mail order, but not for the reason you state (while it is economically reasonable). The transaction is deemed to take place at the location of the business because that's where the money changes hand. Your money in the mail is still yours. Only when it's _received_ does it become owned by someone else."
Citation? My law professors disagreed with you. Further, it is my understanding that once you post something in the U.S. mail, it does NOT belong to you anymore. It belongs to the addressee. Only in the case where the addressee cannot be found will it be returned.

In fact, I seem to recall some cases in which it was determined that a bill was legally paid on the date of postmark. Which means it belongs to the recipient, not the sender.

"The courts disagreed. It may looks the same in effect, but it's not the same at all from a legal point of view,"
Citation? I am curious about this precedent you refer to.

"The rest, state sovereignty, unconstitutional, blah, blah, blah, is based on this misconception."
No, the State sovereignty and Constitutional arguments are based on the Constitution. The mail-order argument has nothing to do with those. You seemed to think I started with the mail order idea and worked backward from there. Not so.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Sesostris+III · 2013-12-02 17:39 · Score: 1

New York has no more power to tax a transaction in Oregon than Afghanistan has to tax a transaction in London.
Afghanistan does have the right to tax the goods resulting from that transaction in London as they enter into Afghanistan.

If States (as you say) are independent, then why shouldn't New York have the right to tax goods resulting from any transaction made in Oregon as they enter into New York?

Of course, rather than New York set up physical checkpoints (and have the tax paid at the border as goods enter into New York), they could make a "logical" one by requiring that the tax be paid at the point of purchase for any goods that will enter New York.

(It would make my life easier if Amazon US collected any VAT likely to be due for goods shipped to the UK and passed the collected payment it to the UK government, rather than me having to go the the Post Office to pay it. However I could see Amazon US objecting to this!)

--
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by hoeferbe · 2013-12-02 18:06 · Score: 1

mybecq wrote:

And by using affiliates as a sales force, a "significant business nexus" is established in the purchaser's State. Hence, they have to collect sales tax for the purchaser's State, because they pay a sales force there.

I admit I do not authoritatively know how Amazon's affiliate program works. I read TFA and have listened to some pod casts that want listeners to make Amazon purchases through their link. I'm not sure how accurate it is to describe or catagorize Amazon affiliates as a sales force.
I have trouble seeing how the commission an affiliate receives is that significantly different than paying for an outright ad. For example, if a mail-order company took out an ad in The New York Times but listed an order-taking phone number that was specific & unique to that TNYT ad, and the mail-order company made a deal with TNYT to pay them a little extra every time an order is placed using that phone number... I am now to believe that creates a "substantial nexus" of the mail-order company in New York state?
What it would come down to, for me, is how Amazon pays their affiliates. If Amazon was paying them as employees, then that would justify claiming they are Amazon's sales force. (I think it is a fair assumption that Amazon is not doing that.) If Amazon is paying them proportionately on the click-through purchases, then I don't see how it can be treated anything other than an ad contract.
If that is the case, then there is nothing to stop New York state from expanding their law to demand any out-of-state advertiser in a New York publication, TV, radio station or website start collecting sales tax for anything sold to a New York resident.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by bingoUV · 2013-12-02 21:16 · Score: 1

Point 5: To get around the "foreign transaction" problem, States came up with the idea of a "use tax". Since they have no authority to tax a transaction that takes place in another state, what they do is tax the purchaser for the use of the item they purchased elsewhere. The use tax is invariably the same amount as a sales tax would be, BUT it isn't a tax on the transaction, it is a tax on the use of the item within the resident's state. So it is legal.
Ok, so if you say, it must be the way the law works in the US. Fine. But the way you say it, it appears you think it is morally justified, and a fair tax. Is it so?
I don't, because the "use tax" is quite opaquely an adaptation of sales tax, as you yourself say. So why should a buyer pay a "sales tax" twice - once in the state where the "transaction" takes place, and second time in the state where the item will be used?

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-12-03 01:31 · Score: 1

Here is another supporting data point for you. The city of St. Cloud, MN which is exists in 3 counties and every few years there is discussion to create a new county so that it can be contained within just one and simplify some of the issues. The most recent proposal had it called Lake Wobegon County.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-12-03 02:17 · Score: 1

To answer there is this thing called the US Constitution and years of Supreme court president. I suggest seeing the following for some background:
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US constitution the Commerce Clause
National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue
Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland
Dormant Commerce Clause
I seem to remember there being a case from the late 1800's about mail order catalog sales but can't remember enough details to find it but there are other rulings as well.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by infinitelink · 2013-12-03 06:58 · Score: 1

And they also capitalized "States" for meaning, a meaning which escapes SirGarlon as evidenced by his question.

--
Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by infinitelink · 2013-12-03 07:21 · Score: 1

I suppose the point I'm making is that it is about goods crossing a (state or national) boundary. That is the logical point of taxation. Therefore (according to this principle) Texas can only tax a transaction between a Ohio resident that occurs in Maryland, if the 'result' of that transactions ends up in Texas!
No Sesostris, it cannot. Texas cannot tax transactions between Ohio and Maryland, and in fact they're forbidden from doing so. They can, however, impose an "excise" tax upon property of those within the State, which is due for purchases, as the current legalists' scheme says. A VAT unlike excise is a tax on imports by a person within a jurisdiction, among many other things, and in any form isn't really lawful within the US but if restricted to the importation part, then it's a different story from, say, the UK attempting to tax a transaction between Ohio and Maryland. Even the excise scheme, however, now in play in the US, was long something forbidden: while excises are legal, our Courts used to uphold this principle called "substance over form" and upheld "form over substance" where required by the Constitution to defend their rights, e.g. the voluntary compliance scheme (which isn't voluntary) which "voluntarily" lets people expose all their papers and effects to taxing authorities, as well as the schemes requiring every entity to account to them, is probably totally odious to the people who wrote Amendment IV; moreover, the commerce clause of these US prohibits States from imposing tariffs and duties on imports, which meant that excises imposed on things "not taxed anywhere else" (actual language used in the legal community) as subjected to tax today, were shot-down as unlawful, i.e. violating the form of government agreed to.

The whole point in having separate jurisdictions is to defeat government and force it to stay thin and light, but neither of our major parties--or their alternatives--really wants this, and folks like yourself in distance places have no grasp of it, there is nothing like this thought found in any major power in the world right now, not to mention the idea that disfavored or oldish or different-from-the-hegemony should be considered okay, not something punishable by law; even having gay friends, for instance, I've explained over and over on that principle why "hate crimes" and "hate speech" other such bull is unacceptable and violates fundamental human rights. (And I've had help from them mocking censure at universities as we started flinging group-name slurs at bullshit they tried making us never say in the name of being unoffensive; throwing-in the Asian and we had a the Irish-Indian-Jewish mutt, Asian-American bananna, and gay guy and they wouldn't dare say anything after we leveled "so you mean that to protect us, you have to make sure we don't even use our own slurs?") It's no accident that Orwell wrote Roman a Clef's based on the elite clases in England and the departments of government in which he worked, as well as the machinations outworking towards certain consequences in that society. Similar effects are under way here. Similar things have already taken place in Canada--Allam Bloom might have been charged (as have some religious leaders) with hate speech violations and convicted of crimes in front of human "rights" tribunals for writing "The Closing of the Canadian Mind" there and daring suggest that it's worthwhile considering whether homosexuality is moral or not (like Plato, or himself--also gay).

So no offense, but classical liberals here give little shrift or thought to those overseas who make comparisons with their forms of government and their operations in attempt to legitimize violations of their Constitution here. Not to mention, such changes first require a surrender and dissolution within the populace under the jurisdiction where democratic principles are at work. When our Constitution was written and then Amended with the Bill of Rights, it were not grants of rights, but rather a list of Common-Law

--
Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by david_thornley · 2013-12-03 09:47 · Score: 1

If States (as you say) are independent, then why shouldn't New York have the right to tax goods resulting from any transaction made in Oregon as they enter into New York?

New York certainly does have that right. That is the basis of "use taxes", which are basically sales taxes that legally must be paid by the purchaser. Collection rates are dismal.

Of course, rather than New York set up physical checkpoints (and have the tax paid at the border as goods enter into New York), they could make a "logical" one by requiring that the tax be paid at the point of purchase for any goods that will enter New York.

The US Constitution establishes some limits on what states can do. Levying a tax on goods entering the state is forbidden by the Constitution. As far as the point of purchase goes, New York cannot impose a tax on activity outside New York, so it cannot impose any tax on any transaction in Oregon. The only thing New York can tax is what goes on inside its borders, which means the state can require residents to pay taxes on out-of-state purchases, and can require businesses in New York to collect and pay sales taxes based on what is sold there.
The big question here is under what circumstances the point of purchase can reasonably be said to be in New York. The US legal principle is that it can, provided the seller has some sort of physical presence there that can be taxed. The legal ruling that the US Supreme Court let stand is whether Amazon affiliates (people who contract to recommend Amazon purchases in exchange for a sort of commission) constitute enough of a presence.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:All your tax avoidance schemes are done by AK+Marc · 2013-12-04 10:17 · Score: 1

And the issues with taxes will span nearly every state with sales taxes. Many tax boundaries don't follow political boundaries. There are portions of the same city that are covered for "roads" or "transport" taxes, but the same city, same county, will have a different tax rate. Sometimes that only affects property taxes, other times it affects sales taxes.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by viperidaenz · 2013-12-02 08:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or consumers will just end up paying more, since more tax will be collected.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by nitehawk214 · 2013-12-02 08:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

Except that big players like Amazon actually want online sales tax. The infrastructure to collect state and local taxes for all 50 states is beyond small retailers, thus either driving them out of business or forcing small retailers to sign up as an Amazon affiliate so they can have someone else deal with the minefield of state and local laws.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

Mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-02 08:21 · Score: 4, Informative

There seems to be a mistake with which court ruled and which court affirmed.
The New York Court of Appeals is their highest court; the New York Supreme Court is its "appeals court." Hence, the NY district court ruled, NYSC then affirmed, whereby the high court (NY Court of Appeals) then affirmed once again. Counter-intuitive, I know; but that's the way it is.

Re:Mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-02 08:45 · Score: 1

Close. The New York Supreme Court is the district-level court. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division is the first level appeals court. The NY Court of Appeals is the highest court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_New_York

the affiliates are a sales force by alen · 2013-12-02 08:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

that's what the NY court ruled, the quill test is satisfied and there is no conflict

i can buy from lots of websites in NY that won't collect sales tax because they don't have any affiliates here

Re:the affiliates are a sales force by lbmouse · 2013-12-02 08:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm torn a bit torn on this... if the are paid by 1099-misc then they are private contractors. If they are paid by W2, then they are a true "employed" sales force. I guess I don't know where the substantial nexus line is drawn.
Re:the affiliates are a sales force by alen · 2013-12-02 08:40 · Score: 2

even if its 1099's, they are a business agreement to sell amazon products in that state

Shocking news by fyngyrz · 2013-12-02 08:23 · Score: 4, Funny

SCOTUS fails to act against government's financial overreach! We could NEVER have predicted THIS!

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Re:Shocking news by JMJimmy · 2013-12-02 08:43 · Score: 1, Interesting

SCOTUS fails to act against government's financial overreach! We could NEVER have predicted THIS!
Ruling seems pretty reasonable to me. If Amazon ditched it's local 3rd party partners then Quill Corp vs North Dakota would apply to the products Amazon itself sells. As it stands Amazon's 3rd party partners are no different than dealerships are to a car company.
Re:Shocking news by ArbitraryName · 2013-12-02 08:50 · Score: 2

As it stands Amazon's 3rd party partners are no different than dealerships are to a car company.
That doesn't make any sense. A car dealership buys cars from Ford or whoever and sells them locally. Amazon affiliates own and sell nothing and do nothing more than recommend people shop at Amazon.
Re:Shocking news by miroku000 · 2013-12-02 08:53 · Score: 1

Ruling seems pretty reasonable to me. If Amazon ditched it's local 3rd party partners then Quill Corp vs North Dakota would apply to the products Amazon itself sells. As it stands Amazon's 3rd party partners are no different than dealerships are to a car company.
Is the summary misleading, or are they taking about 3rd party partners and not "affiliates" like the summary said. Amazon Affiliates just put a banner add on their web site. It is more like running an advertisement inside the state than it is like a car dealership.
Re:Shocking news by fyngyrz · 2013-12-02 08:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

Ruling seems pretty reasonable to me. If Amazon ditched it's local 3rd party partners then Quill Corp vs North Dakota would apply to the products Amazon itself sells.
There is no SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS let a (very bad) state decision stand. Why is it bad? Anything that even *leans* towards someone in state A having to pay taxes to, and which were legislated in, state B, is destructive to the very fabric of the states. Federal taxes are bad enough (for their over-reach and the incredible misuses the money is put to and the inability of the citizen to have actual effective representation in any tax matter) but add my state wanting new highways and taxing your purchase in your state to enable that, or any variation thereto... now you have well and truly screwed the pooch.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Shocking news by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-12-02 09:07 · Score: 2

So if Amazon has no presence, but they are selling on behalf of some company in New York, to somebody in New York, and it ships from that company in New York, not from an Amazon warehouse outside New York, that seems fine.
But do they have to collect tax from a 3rd party company that is, itself, also outsode New York, just because some completely separate partner is in New York?
That would be wrong.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Shocking news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-02 09:09 · Score: 1

Anything that even *leans* towards someone in state A having to pay taxes to, and which were legislated in, state B, is destructive to the very fabric of the states.
If you do business in a state you have to abide by their rules including taxes. This has always been the case. There was a brief time where the SCOTUS decided following these rules as too complicated. Given the massive data mining Amazon does, I highly doubt these taxes are an undue burden. Don't want to pay taxes in a state? Just don't trade or go there.
Re:Shocking news by JMJimmy · 2013-12-02 09:25 · Score: 1

As it stands Amazon's 3rd party partners are no different than dealerships are to a car company.
That doesn't make any sense. A car dealership buys cars from Ford or whoever and sells them locally. Amazon affiliates own and sell nothing and do nothing more than recommend people shop at Amazon.
While the nature of the relationship is different each acts, as the court put it, as a nexus for consumers to buy products from the company they have a relationship with.
Re:Shocking news by mcmonkey · 2013-12-02 09:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why is it bad? Anything that even *leans* towards someone in state A having to pay taxes to, and which were legislated in, state B, is destructive to the very fabric of the states.

Yeah, but there isn't any of that in this case. The people paying taxes to state B are in state B. The question isn't even does someone/business in state A have to collect taxes for state B. The question is for a business like Amazon, what does it mean to "be" in a state.
This may be a bad decision, but your comment doesn't address why.
Re:Shocking news by jratcliffe · 2013-12-02 09:43 · Score: 4, Informative

There is no SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS let a (very bad) state decision stand. Why is it bad? Anything that even *leans* towards someone in state A having to pay taxes to, and which were legislated in, state B, is destructive to the very fabric of the states. Federal taxes are bad enough (for their over-reach and the incredible misuses the money is put to and the inability of the citizen to have actual effective representation in any tax matter) but add my state wanting new highways and taxing your purchase in your state to enable that, or any variation thereto... now you have well and truly screwed the pooch.
1. The taxes at issue here are YOUR STATE'S taxes. It's not you (as a resident of State A) being forced to pay State B's taxes. The question is under what circumstances a business can be forced to collect State A's taxes for purchases made by residents in State A. If you don't like State A's taxes, you can work to get them changed, or move to a state with lower taxes (I hear B is nice this time of year).
2. Technically, sales taxes are paid by the buyer, not the seller. The only issue here is under what circumstances State A can force Amazon to collect State A's taxes - in the absence of Amazon collecting them, you're supposed to submit them yourself.
Re:Shocking news by TooMuchToDo · 2013-12-02 09:59 · Score: 1

So incorporate your affiliate business in Delaware. Problem solved.
Re:Shocking news by wiredlogic · 2013-12-02 10:03 · Score: 2

In-state purchases from a business with a "nexus" of operation in the state have always been regarded as subject to state taxes.
The question is whether purchases from an out of state entity with no nexus are subject to in-state taxes. This generally falls under the jurisdiction of state use taxes which conflict with federal law forbidding taxation of interstate trade. Since use taxes are generally only paid voluntarily and aren't legally enforceable, the states want to be able to force the collection of sales tax up front on out of state entities.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Re:Shocking news by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-02 10:40 · Score: 1

CA seems to think use taxes are legally enforceable.
Re:Shocking news by Zalbik · 2013-12-02 12:06 · Score: 2

But do they have to collect tax from a 3rd party company that is, itself, also outsode New York, just because some completely separate partner is in New York?
That would be wrong.
No...they are not required to collect tax from 3rd party companies. They are required to collect tax from customers.
The 3rd party "substantial nexus" argument is that Amazon does enough business with 3rd party companies in New York to be considered to have a presence in New York.
Look at it this way: If I go to a New York store and order some widget, and they tell me "Oh, we don't currently have it in stock, but we can ship it in from our warehouse in California", then I pay New York state tax.
Amazon is claiming that if I go to their website and order some widget, and they ship it from their warehouse in California, then I shouldn't have to pay state tax.
I fail to see the difference.
Re:Shocking news by ixidor · 2013-12-02 16:23 · Score: 2

cause the store .. is you know .. there in New York. and amazon is like in the cloud man. so yeah you there in a physical store paying sales tax makes sense. order a widget from a website, that has no store physically in NY, has no warehouse in NY, the only time they physically enter NY is by fedex with your widget.
Re:Shocking news by Goetterdaemmerung · 2013-12-02 16:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

1. The taxes at issue here are YOUR STATE'S taxes. It's not you (as a resident of State A) being forced to pay State B's taxes. The question is under what circumstances a business can be forced to collect State A's taxes for purchases made by residents in State A.
Perhaps, however I live in New Hampshire (which has no sales tax) and was forced to pay another state's sales tax when I purchased a gift and had it mailed to the recipient. It has nothing to do with MY STATE'S taxes. I was forced to pay State B's taxes or else deny the sale. As it was a gift, I went ahead but it's not like I got anything for my tax dollars. Talk about taxation without representation.
Re:Shocking news by Kilo+Kilo · 2013-12-03 00:08 · Score: 1

If you do business in a state you have to abide by their rules including taxes.
Amazon is not coming to NY to do business. New Yorkers are going to Amazon to buy things, except they're doing it via the internet rather than a physical store. If Amazon had a store right over the border in NJ, then NY wouldn't dare try and collect taxes. But here, because we can through in the words, "on a computer," that somehow lets the govt. bend the laws in their favor.

If you live near the NY/NJ or NY/PA border you leave NY to do your shopping and get gas because the taxes are less. NY is so bad for business, it's sad.

My company was looking at moving to PA and NY didn't care. Some people accused us of just bluffing to try and get some handouts from the state or the county. That wasn't the case, but neither of them cared anyway. PA meanwhile has a team of people trying to get business to come into their state. Of course, the owner didn't want to spend the money now, in spite of the fact that a new building would have paid for itself in 10 years with all the money we would have saved on taxes, unemployment, etc.

I [heart] NY
Re:Shocking news by pellik · 2013-12-03 02:04 · Score: 1

How big is your gas tank that you come out ahead paying $16 to get back into NY?

There's a pretty hefty tax on leaving NJ.
Re:Shocking news by jratcliffe · 2013-12-03 02:14 · Score: 1

The actual obligation to pay the use tax was that of the gift recipient (technically, if you had bought it at a physical store in NH, and given it to the person in state X, they would have been obliged to pay state X's use tax on the item). You were just kind enough to pay the tax on the recipient's behalf, along with the cost of the product. The person being taxed (the recipient of the gift) certainly does have representation. You're just not the person actually being taxed.
Re:Shocking news by MachineShedFred · 2013-12-03 02:25 · Score: 1

I'm shocked... SHOCKED... to hear of California thinking that they can grab more tax money somehow.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:Shocking news by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-12-03 03:23 · Score: 1

No it's not because Amazon must collect taxes on all purchases not just 3rd party purchases. If it was limited to 3rd party purchases that would be fine.
Re:Shocking news by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-12-03 03:25 · Score: 1

Which is over reaching and clearly violates the Nexus principle. Unless Amazon has a presence in that state, no state tax should be collected. States were looking for a loop hole.
Re:Shocking news by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-12-03 03:27 · Score: 1

So does NY doesn't make it so.
Re:Shocking news by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-12-03 03:31 · Score: 1

Actually no, because the Federal Government has forbade States from collection sales taxes on purchases from retailers that do not have a presence in that State. States had to invent a "use" tax in order to collect sales tax. It's voluntary, however.

Again the issue is that States cannot collect sales tax on purchases from businesses that do not have a presence in that state.
Re:Shocking news by JMJimmy · 2013-12-03 03:32 · Score: 1

The court ruled that their relationship with these in-state 3rd parties was enough to constitute a presence which makes sense - otherwise companies could just 3rd party their sales force and not pay tax in a state. The description states that this somehow conflicts with the Quill ruling where Quill had no 1st or 3rd party presence in the state in question. If Amazon terminated it's relationship with these 3rd parties, in theory the Quill ruling should apply and any 1st party sales would be exempt.
Re:Shocking news by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-12-03 03:33 · Score: 1

You paid the recipients states sales tax. Had that happen to me too. You have representation. It's just you ran into tax jurisdictional boundary issues.
Re:Shocking news by JMJimmy · 2013-12-03 03:45 · Score: 1

What is the "nexus principle"? A basic definition: "A place of business or employee is evidence of “physical presence” and thus constitutes a nexus" (grabbed from the abstract here: http://www.igi-global.com/article/principle-nexus-commerce-tax/66052 )
If you are paying an in-state 3rd party to direct individuals seeking to buy products to your site that is really no different than hiring a sales employee, 1st or 3rd party to do the same. While there is no "employment" contract between Amazon and it's affiliates, there is a contract and remuneration for sales related actions.
Re:Shocking news by jratcliffe · 2013-12-03 03:48 · Score: 1

The "use tax" is certainly NOT voluntary. It's incredibly widely evaded, but the user of the product is definitely required to pay the tax. The only question is, under what circumstances can a business be required to collect that use tax on behalf of the state in which the user is located, and this brings up the question of what constitutes nexus (which SCOTUS has been wrestling with for some time). The issue here isn't whether the tax is owed, it's who is required to collect and submit the tax - they're two separate issues. As an analogy, in the income tax world, income taxes are the employee's responsibility, but the employer is required to withhold (collect) them on behalf of the gov't.
Re:Shocking news by Kilo+Kilo · 2013-12-03 05:10 · Score: 1

I meant NY as a state.

Thanks for bringing up that ridiculous bridge toll, though. Where the hell is all that money going?
Re:Shocking news by DedTV · 2013-12-03 09:40 · Score: 1

Affiliates are quite a bit different than car dealerships. Their affiliate program is more like a company in California hiring a New York Marketing company to run ads on TV in New York. They simply pay someone to advertise their services outside their local operating area.

But it's not a big issue for Amazon since it only applies to the affiliate program. In the short term they're likely to just drop any affiliates in that that district as they've already done in several states. Thus they negate their "presence" there under this ruling and can continue doing business without collecting taxes. That'll hold until suits regarding the Amazon Marketplace sellers make their way through the courts. They're a far clearer "presence" as they are essentially Amazon franchisees and it'll be harder for Amazon to drop them as they're a much more significant source of revenue.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by MightyYar · 2013-12-02 08:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't think it will help them much. Brick and mortar still has to pay property tax, utilities, etc. They still have to finance high-value real estate. They still have to have a clean, wide-open space which is aesthetically pleasing but economically wasteful. Anyway, I'm not aware of states with 10% sales tax - usually it is about half of that, and the highest seems to be 7.5% in CA. To get to 10%, I have to scroll down the list and find the highest state taxes and combine them with the highest local taxes.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by McPierce · 2013-12-02 08:27 · Score: 2

Or, as with here in NC, Amazon will stop the associate/affiliate program in states that enact tax laws.

--
Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"

Marketplace Fairness Act seems DOA by JoeyRox · 2013-12-02 08:27 · Score: 1

Haven't heard much about MFA since it passed the Senate. Studies I've read say it's a non-starter for the majority of constituents. That means it's going to take some extra palm greasing by corporations. Congressmen don't act against the will of people for cheap!

Re:Marketplace Fairness Act seems DOA by sconeu · 2013-12-02 11:24 · Score: 1

Actually, you'd be surprised at how little a Congresscritter costs. http://www.opensecrets.org.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-02 08:28 · Score: 1

No, actually, Amazon has been fighting tooth and nail against sales tax for years. Small retailers already can't really compete with Amazon to begin with--they don't need to add more hurdles. Amazon is more interested in competing with brick-and-mortar (Wal-Mart) than online boutiques.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by bev_tech_rob · 2013-12-02 08:33 · Score: 2

I don't think it will help them much. Brick and mortar still has to pay property tax, utilities, etc. They still have to finance high-value real estate. They still have to have a clean, wide-open space which is aesthetically pleasing but economically wasteful. Anyway, I'm not aware of states with 10% sales tax - usually it is about half of that, and the highest seems to be 7.5% in CA. To get to 10%, I have to scroll down the list and find the highest state taxes and combine them with the highest local taxes.

Fort Smith, AR is close.....9.375 % city & state combined.....

--
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by alen · 2013-12-02 08:33 · Score: 2

most of the small businesses who sell online use one of the many off the shelf or cloud solutions out there. or they use amazon's website to sell their wares. most of the older crap amazon lists is really sold by someone else.

any small business trying to write their own code for this is plain dumb

Get Ready... by BlueStrat · 2013-12-02 08:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

Get ready for amazon.ag and overstock.ag.

At least, if I were in charge at Amazon.com or Overstock.com, I'd be looking to move the business out of the USA. As a bonus (outside of avoiding overly-burdensome US tax/regulation bureaucracy and costs), they could offer any US copyrighted work for sale from Antigua without any consideration for US copyright holders.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:Get Ready... by jythie · 2013-12-02 08:41 · Score: 1

Well, that is the current dream of many.. find ways to have all the benefits of operating in the US without paying for it. Taxes are something that it is in one's best interest to have other people paying.
Re:Get Ready... by CohibaVancouver · 2013-12-02 08:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

At least, if I were in charge at Amazon.com or Overstock.com, I'd be looking to move the business out of the USA
And when your HDMI cable hit the US border you can enjoy paying any duties, taxes & customs brokerage fees that apply to a shipment from Antigua.
Re:Get Ready... by Stormy+Dragon · 2013-12-02 08:55 · Score: 2

So your prediction is that in order to avoid paying sales taxes, Amazon is going to start paying far larger excise taxes and customs fees instead?
Re:Get Ready... by bob_super · 2013-12-02 08:57 · Score: 1

I am looking forward to the Customs and Border Patrol's reactions to Amazon's fleet of drones flying packages in from Antigua.
Need to buy a house near the coast and some defense stocks, the fireworks will be awesome!!
Re:Get Ready... by xaxa · 2013-12-02 09:00 · Score: 1

Wouldn't they be charged import taxes?
Play.com is^H^Hwas in Jersey, one of the small islands between Great Britain and France. It's a "Crown Dependency" of the UK, roughly comparable to the US Virgin Isles. It's not part of the EU. There was a loophole, where low-value items imported into the UK weren't charged VAT. Jersey is also considered part of the UK for postal prices, so the postage cost was the same for a business there as in, say, Manchester.
That led to Play.com and others selling DVDs and CDs to the UK, until April 2012 when the loophole was closed, and January this year when they shut down the Jersey warehouse.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-20953357
(Guernsey and the Isle of Man are the other two tax havens in the British Isles, although we have plenty more spread around the world.)
Amazon.co.uk, .de, etc are already based in Luxembourg, to avoid as much tax as possible while remaining within the EU.
Re:Get Ready... by AK+Marc · 2013-12-02 10:13 · Score: 2

I've never been hit with a customs or excise fee for an Alibaba purchase. So why wouldn't Amazon leave the US for the same preferential treatment?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Get Ready... by Stormy+Dragon · 2013-12-02 10:22 · Score: 1

Congratulations, you've unwittingly become a small-time smuggler.
Re:Get Ready... by AK+Marc · 2013-12-02 11:08 · Score: 1

There are no exceptions for small purchases for personal use? Looking at the customs site, it looks like I should be paying 3% to the feds, and state sales tax (use tax) to the state. Yup, at most, I'm stealing $3 per $100 purchase.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Get Ready... by StripedCow · 2013-12-02 11:26 · Score: 1

A minor problem is still that their drones can only fly up to 10 miles.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Re:Get Ready... by TubeSteak · 2013-12-02 13:12 · Score: 1

1. AFAIK, unlike Amazon, you don't actually buy anything directly from the Alibaba corporation.
2. Most *Chinese sellers lie on the customs declaration so that you don't have to pay fees.
*I'm not picking on China, most overseas sellers do this.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Get Ready... by AK+Marc · 2013-12-02 13:34 · Score: 1

You should have worded #2 as "most international sellers do this" as those in the US do it when shipping out.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Get Ready... by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-12-02 16:20 · Score: 1

And when your HDMI cable hit the US border you can enjoy paying any duties, taxes & customs brokerage fees that apply to a shipment from Antigua.
Still 90% cheaper than Best Buy.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Get Ready... by Solandri · 2013-12-02 19:39 · Score: 1

If it's anything like the Canadian online retailer I helped set up, the HDMI cable never hits the U.S. border. While the purchase transaction is processed outside the U.S via an international financial transaction., the company outside the U.S. simply instructs a warehouse within the U.S. to ship the goods to your home address in the U.S. They later pay the warehouse using another international financial transaction.

i.e. Instead of the money going from NY => WA => TX and NY claiming that under U.S. law they can tax it, the money goes NY => Antigua => TX. And since NY has no legal right to tax financial transactions with Antigua, they're SOL. (The Federal government could impose some tax or levy for the international payments, but they didn't in the US / Canada case.)

See, the problem is people are thinking of this whole thing backwards. They think the default state is you should pay your taxes, and any method of avoiding taxes is an aberration. In reality it's the other way around. The default state is the lack of taxes, and requiring payment of taxes is the aberration. Consequently, unless you legislate taxes on all transactions (intrastate, interstate, international, an eventually interplanetary or interdimensional), this sales tax "loophole" will continue to exist. Because it's not a loophole. It's the natural state of things, and your tax law just doesn't cover all the possible ways to transfer money.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by alen · 2013-12-02 08:34 · Score: 2

so?

most of these people have no problem voting in local leaders who like to spend $$$

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by 0123456 · 2013-12-02 08:36 · Score: 1

Not true. I buy plenty of stuff from small retailers, and not because they're cheaper than Amazon.

There's a place for a 'sells anything to anyone' store like Amazon, but there's also a place for niche stores that specialize in one kind of product and serve it well.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by FacePlant · 2013-12-02 08:38 · Score: 1

You have no idea how badly amazon doesn't wan't this burden, or the one passed a couple of years ago that forces them to send 1099s to anybody how they pay more than $600 in a year. No business wants to pay to implement these processes. Especially since they are not revenue stream, they are very real cost drivers.

Annoying systems, with no business value, with lots of human intervention, and compliance costs. It's a bit like the cost of implementing Sabannes-Oxley, but on a smaller scale.

--
My Heart Is A Flower

Re:Why is this so difficult? by Aaden42 · 2013-12-02 08:40 · Score: 2

Simple reason why not: Rhode Island (to pick the smallest state) passes a law saying sales tax 1% for all online sales. Every online retailer “moves” to RI, and every other state loses piles of revenue.

Emphasizing the “use tax” aspect requires tax be paid where the product is in fact “used” and makes it harder to game the system. Unless you happen to have a very accommodating friend/relative in a particular low-tax state, you pay what your local law makers have decreed. No tax havens emerge.

Re:Why is this so difficult? by egcagrac0 · 2013-12-02 08:45 · Score: 1

Around here:

What if I already paid tax in another state?

Wisconsin allows a credit, for sales tax properly paid in another state, against use tax due. If you properly paid sales tax in another state, the sales tax paid may be used to offset the Wisconsin use tax due. See Wisconsin Tax Bulletin #157, page 28 for further information. Foreign taxes and customs duty charges are not eligible for this credit.

I have to believe that there is similar language in 49 other places.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by jedidiah · 2013-12-02 08:46 · Score: 1

Best Buy still sucks and so does Barnes and Noble.

Extracting an extra 10% from Amazon customers won't really change that. Even if Amazon were MORE expensive, they still have the benefit of a much wider selection and better availability of stock.

I can't buy what Best Buy doesn't even carry.

So all of this whining about unfairness from the dinosaurs is really stupid.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by bob_super · 2013-12-02 08:46 · Score: 1

Cook County, IL (Chicago) has had up to 11% depending on what you buy.
Lambasted at the time as the highest in the nation by people trying to repel it. I think the extra percent or two has been phased out.

By law, EU countries have to have 15% to 25% VAT for non-essential goods. But it's always included in the price so you're not reminded of it every time you pull out your wallet.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Petron · 2013-12-02 08:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

I think this will drive omnichannel commerce and remove the 10% price advantage that companies like Amazon and Overstock enjoyed with respect to Brick and mortar stores. Competition will increase - and it can only be better for consumers.

Bull. Flat out bull.

People don't pick Amazon or Overstock to save on sales tax... they do it because the prices are cheaper. When I head to BestBuy and find a SATA cable listed for 25 bucks, and Amazon has it for 4.50... I don't pick Amazon because I "save" 7.25% in sales tax.

Plus those Brick & Mortar stores don't charge shipping... Shipping is almost always higher than sales tax. Now I know you are going to say "But Amazon offers free shipping for orders of $35 or more!"... So does UPS ship for free on those orders? No. Amazon eats the cost to encourage people to buy more. So why doesn't the Brick & Mortar stores offer "We pay the sales tax for all orders over $X!"??? They can reduce the price by what ever the local tax rate is (7.25%) easily enough. They don't because they know that isn't the reason why people are shopping online.

There is a good reason why the SCOTUS refused to hear this: It would be struck down. Article 1, section 9 of the US Constitution states: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." To put it simply: If I own a store in New Mexico, and I sell to somebody who lives in a different state... I don't collect any taxes or duties on that item. If I have a store in that state, I will have to collect taxes.

Sears & Roebuck had the same sales model as Amazon back in the late 1800's. They didn't collect sales tax either.
Sears sold things by a mail-order catalog.
Customers would read the mail-order catalog, and use a mail-in order form for items, with payment.
After receiving the order and payment, Sears would deliver the requested item.
Amazon does the same thing, just replace "Mail-order/mail-in" with "Online". Changing the way one reads a catalog, or orders items doesn't affect the law. If somebody uses a telephone, it didn't change it, neither should a computer.

Stores in town lost customers due to this, not because of "They don't collect sales tax" but because they offered so much more, at a cheaper price. The brick & mortars did have a "You get it now" features instead of having to wait 2 weeks... but for many, the savings was well worth the wait.

--
if (it != oneThing) it = another;

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by cayenne8 · 2013-12-02 08:52 · Score: 1

Except that big players like Amazon actually want online sales tax. The infrastructure to collect state and local taxes for all 50 states is beyond small retailers, thus either driving them out of business or forcing small retailers to sign up as an Amazon affiliate so they can have someone else deal with the minefield of state and local laws.

While your point is valid, I don't think that will be what helps Amazon.

I'm guessing myself, like many people put up with the 2x day delay in getting something (delayed gratification) due to not having to pay sales tax on orders from Amazon.

I save my large $$ purchase for online, if I buy something about $2K, I'd rather wait a few days for shipping and not have to pay 9% of that in taxes.

If I had to pay sales tax, I'd just as soon buy it locally for immediate gain, and all things being local (if all was taxed) I'd just as soon keep things local.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

sounds great, minus the quote marks by raymorris · 2013-12-02 08:53 · Score: 2

Companies move to states that have low taxes, good infrastructure, where people need the jobs, etc. That sounds like a win to me - it works better for everyone except maybe the bureaucrats who did a crappy job, having high taxes but not using it to build strong infrastructure, a strong workforce, or anything else that attracts business.

Re:sounds great, minus the quote marks by jratcliffe · 2013-12-02 10:09 · Score: 1

Look at your credit card bill at some point. Your card is probably issued by a bank subsidary located in North Dakota. It isn't located there because of "strong infrastructure, a strong workforce," or anything of the sort - it's there because ND has historically had laxer laws regarding things like maximum interest rates, etc. You'd end up with something similar here - a whole bunch of warehouses located somewhere ONLY because of the tax rate, not because of any actual advantages of the state.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by ArbitraryName · 2013-12-02 08:53 · Score: 5, Informative

No, actually, Amazon has been fighting tooth and nail against sales tax for years.

Amazon has been fighting against having to collect individual sales tax, while endorsing a Federal framework like The Marketplace Fairness Act.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by cayenne8 · 2013-12-02 08:54 · Score: 1

I don't think it will help them much. Brick and mortar still has to pay property tax, utilities, etc. They still have to finance high-value real estate. They still have to have a clean, wide-open space which is aesthetically pleasing but economically wasteful. Anyway, I'm not aware of states with 10% sales tax - usually it is about half of that, and the highest seems to be 7.5% in CA. To get to 10%, I have to scroll down the list and find the highest state taxes and combine them with the highest local taxes.

In the New Orlean area, with city, state, etc...tax is 9.x%....

Too high for my liking, hence I order everything I can online.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

The court gave no explanation by fnj · 2013-12-02 08:54 · Score: 1

We are the fucking supreme court. We don't have to wait our turn in the restaurant, and we certainly don't have to give a reason for our arbitrary decisions. Not even the decision not to decide. There is nobody who can touch us, bitch.

Impeachment? BWAHAHAHAHA!

Re:The court gave no explanation by jratcliffe · 2013-12-02 10:06 · Score: 1

Yes, because it's feasible and desirable for the Supreme Court to spend time issuing a detailed rejection of cert for every one of the more than 8000 cases (~99% of the total submitted) where they deny cert.
Re:The court gave no explanation by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-12-02 16:27 · Score: 1

If I remember my history, there were 5 Justices for a population of 3.5 million and a very small federal government and now there are 9 justices for a population of 300 million, a monstrous federal government, and a much more complex Constitution.
Failing to review nearly all of the requested cases is not a feature, if the system has any credibility left, it's a failure.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:The court gave no explanation by jratcliffe · 2013-12-03 02:11 · Score: 1

If I remember my history, there were 5 Justices for a population of 3.5 million and a very small federal government and now there are 9 justices for a population of 300 million, a monstrous federal government, and a much more complex Constitution.
Failing to review nearly all of the requested cases is not a feature, if the system has any credibility left, it's a failure.
They didn't "fail to review." They reviewed, and determined that there wasn't any reason to take the case.

To clarify to the non-Northwesters: by themushroom · 2013-12-02 08:55 · Score: 2

Washington has sales tax paid at purchase. (Local to me it's 9.2%)
Oregon has a state income tax -- so save those receipts.

Thus both states tax their goods, just one more delayed than others, with the benefit that Washingtoninans love shopping in Oregon since they don't pay sales tax and Oregonians (like Alaskans) say "no tax" when purchasing stuff in Oregon.

--
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by cayenne8 · 2013-12-02 08:58 · Score: 2, Informative

People don't pick Amazon or Overstock to save on sales tax... they do it because the prices are cheaper.

Well, that statement does NOT make sense.

Total prices = Cost of Item + Shipping + Sales Tax

So, yes, not paying sales tax quite often makes the large decision in where to purchase, when total sales tax buying locally is close to 10%, that is a significant cost.

I find that the actual prices at Amazon vs most B&M places local are pretty close, but the lack of sales tax and free shipping make the choice pretty easy for me.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

ps yes I'm assuming taxed where they operate by raymorris · 2013-12-02 08:59 · Score: 1

Yes, my comment above is predicated on these companies being taxed where they primarily operate, not where they file incorporation. That shouldn't be too tough.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by ganjadude · 2013-12-02 09:00 · Score: 1

in NY its between 8 and 9.5% depending on locallity

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Pherdnut · 2013-12-02 09:02 · Score: 1

I know you're wrong. If only it wasn't so hard to find a link somewhere pointing to an article about Amazon fighting to get the supreme court to take their fight against sales taxes online...

and for those of we IN the chain... by themushroom · 2013-12-02 09:06 · Score: 1

I'm a Washington resident so I'm in the statistical minority that do pay tax on Amazon's goods. The ruling doesn't help those who live in the place where the business is located, understandably, only those who do not -- and in the case of Amazon, since the source can be anywhere, that list of "nots" is rather subjective or narrow in light of 'substantial nexus'.

--
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Petron · 2013-12-02 09:08 · Score: 4, Informative

It makes perfect sense. Prices are cheaper, and it's not due to that evil sales tax being forced on B&M stores.

Lets look at the SATA cable example.
Best Buy: Cost of Item: $25. Shipping: Free. Sales Tax (7.25%): 1.81 = Total: $26.81.
Amazon: Cost of item: $4. Shipping fee: $4.50 (yes more than 100% of the item's cost), Sales Tax (None) = Total: $8.50.

Which one gets the sale?

Now lets say sales tax is collected (If I live in a state with an Amazon hub): $4 + 4.50 + (0.29) = $8.79. Heck even if the shipping is taxed it's cheaper (+0.62).

--
if (it != oneThing) it = another;

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by MightyYar · 2013-12-02 09:09 · Score: 1

By law, EU countries have to have 15% to 25% VAT for non-essential goods.

I never understood why Europeans went shopping in New York until I heard about their VAT.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by TWiTfan · 2013-12-02 09:10 · Score: 1

The problem is that this makes it a huge pain in the ass for smaller online retailers. Brick and mortar retailers only have to deal with the taxes on the particular state and local region in which their store is physically located. Any online retailer potentially has to deal with the taxes in every state and region in the world (anywhere a customer could order from).

This means that only the larger online retailers will have the infrastructure to stay in business. If I'm starting a mom-and-pop online service, I'm either going to have to pay a 3rd-party to deal with all the states' and cities' tax laws or go out of business. Because there is no way some little operation is going to be able to handle collecting all the taxes from Nowhereville, Iowa (including know what they are and where to remit them).

--
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by CanHasDIY · 2013-12-02 09:11 · Score: 1

By law, EU countries have to have 15% to 25% VAT for non-essential goods. But it's always included in the price so you're not reminded of it every time you pull out your wallet.

That's funny - when I go look at buying Arduinos straight from the maker's website, all the prices say "+VAT."

Do they just not remind you of it when you're in Europe?

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by bob_super · 2013-12-02 09:13 · Score: 1

The Euro is also creeping up around 1.35 USD, which offsets the current price gouging by the airlines and hotels.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by EboMike · 2013-12-02 09:20 · Score: 1

Bull. Flat out bull.

People don't pick Amazon or Overstock to save on sales tax... they do it because the prices are cheaper.

Not always true. Stores like Fry's match online prices. People pick Amazon because it's more convenient, there's a wider choice of products, or because they don't (didn't) have to pay sales tax.

You picked out cables as an example. Best Buy is notorious for selling absurdly overpriced "premium" cables with gold-plated connectors or some other stupid gimmick that only idiots would spend money on. But if you pick identical products, there's not that much of a price difference.

Simple solution by Runaway1956 · 2013-12-02 09:21 · Score: 2

Amazon should just stop selling in New York to protest the taxes.

What's that? New York has more than 20% of the nation's population? So what? You mean that Amazon might prefer to collect and pay the taxes, rather than lose ~20% of their business? Imagine that . . . .

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br

Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-02 10:04 · Score: 1

What's that? New York has more than 20% of the nation's population? So what? You mean that Amazon might prefer to collect and pay the taxes, rather than lose ~20% of their business? Imagine that . . . .
You might want to check your numbers. New York has just over 6% of the US population.
Re:Simple solution by gmhowell · 2013-12-02 15:56 · Score: 1

What's that? New York has more than 20% of the nation's population? So what? You mean that Amazon might prefer to collect and pay the taxes, rather than lose ~20% of their business? Imagine that . . . .
You might want to check your numbers. New York has just over 6% of the US population.
Maybe he was measuring by USI levels instead of raw population?

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by mrchaotica · 2013-12-02 09:23 · Score: 1

In theory, it would cause the local government to either lower the tax rate or provide additional services, each of which would equalize the (average) value to the <strike>consumers<strike></strike>taxpayers</strike>citizens.

--

"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by DogDude · 2013-12-02 09:23 · Score: 1

The infrastructure to collect state and local taxes for all 50 states is beyond small retailers

I agree! How would online retailers keep track of long lists of numbers and do arithmetic? It would take some kind of mechanical "computer" of some sort that could handle a complex procedure like that. That is quite a burden to be placed on online retailers, indeed.

--
I don't respond to AC's.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by bws111 · 2013-12-02 09:26 · Score: 1

That is a dumb example though. The only reason anyone would buy a SATA cable at BB is because they need one right now, and you pay a premium for the ability to get it right now. If you compare the price of things that people actually go to BB for (TVs, cameras, computers, etc) you find they are very close to Amazon's prices, except for that 8% (where I am) sales tax.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by MightyYar · 2013-12-02 09:26 · Score: 1

Yes, but clothes and shoes aren't taxed at all until you hit $110, and you can always take the bus over to Paramus and pay no sales tax at all on clothes. Presumably, these same rules will Apply to online retailers. So in effect, nothing will change for those kinds of items.

If you aren't in the market for clothes, I should mention the New Jersey "Urban Enterprise Zones". Those only have 3.5% tax and are easy to get to from NYC.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by DogDude · 2013-12-02 09:29 · Score: 1

I'm either going to have to pay a 3rd-party to deal with all the states' and cities' tax laws or go out of business.

So what? Do small online retailers provide some kind of public good that we should waive basic tax collection responsibilities for them? If somebody wants to do business across the entire country, there's a cost to that. It's still about a jillion times cheaper than opening physical stores all across the country.

--
I don't respond to AC's.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Petron · 2013-12-02 09:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

For a second example:
Monsters University Blu-Ray + DVD Combo pack (not Collector's Edition)

Local Tax rate: 7.25%
Place: Item Price + Shipping + Tax = Total

WalMart: 29.96 + 0 + $2.17 = $32.13
Amazon: 23.29 + $3.98 + 0 = $27.27

Amazon's total price is still cheaper than WalMart's list price. Even if there was a sales tax, Amazon would still be cheaper. And if I buy a bit more, the shipping cost will be paid by Amazon.

And the "With big items, it makes a difference"... No, it doesn't. Big items are normally... Big and or heavy. Lets say a TV. The shipping cost of that isn't cheap... Very likely it's higher than what any sales tax that would apply. And either the customer pays it (still being cheaper than the B&M store), or the store eats the cost...

--
if (it != oneThing) it = another;

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by AK+Marc · 2013-12-02 09:32 · Score: 1

Not just that it's a cost, but it's a cost for Amazon, that doesn't apply to Newegg, or Alibaba, or others. It's a competitive disadvantage for Amazon. Tall Poppy syndrome.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Petron · 2013-12-02 09:33 · Score: 1

I didn't "get it right now"... And Best Buy (and other B&M stores) are claiming it's "Sales Tax" why people aren't buying their stuff.

On another note: Last time I was in a KMart, I found some CD Jewel cases for $5.99 (+ tax). Amazon's price was $9.99 (+ shipping). KMart sold some CD cases that day.

--
if (it != oneThing) it = another;

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by ArbitraryName · 2013-12-02 09:34 · Score: 2

I'm guessing myself, like many people put up with the 2x day delay in getting something (delayed gratification) due to not having to pay sales tax on orders from Amazon.

How much do you buy that you need "immediate gratification" for? Most of the things I buy are because I have to. Clothes, household items, etc.I shop online primarily for the convenience, with selection and cost coming next. The fewer retail stores I have to spend my time in, the better. Clicking "buy" on a website is something I can easily do with time that would otherwise be wasted. Going to a retail store is a significant chunk of my very limited free time.

If I had to pay sales tax, I'd just as soon buy it locally for immediate gain, and all things being local (if all was taxed) I'd just as soon keep things local.

Shopping at a retail store like Target, Sears, or Home Depot isn't really "keeping it local".

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-02 09:36 · Score: 1

Depends on how small "small business" is. Many accounting apps can deal with sales tax jurisdictions already. And if not provided by the app, companies that have addons to do it and/or provide periodic updates.

So this is "hard" for companies that don't have to remit sales tax (oregon, new hampshire), or have tried to roll their own, and now have to add in byzantine Midwest tax jurisdictions and special cases by products or services.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by nitehawk214 · 2013-12-02 09:37 · Score: 1

If I had to pay sales tax, I'd just as soon buy it locally for immediate gain, and all things being local (if all was taxed) I'd just as soon keep things local.

I would think that majority of Amazon's sales are not to people merely seeking to avoid sales tax. I don't know what amount of their sales go on big ticket items where this would be prevalent though.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

This is EXACTLY a federal issue by Overzeetop · 2013-12-02 09:38 · Score: 2

It depends on where you are. Some states tax property, some sales, some income, some intangibles (stocks/bonds). Each state has a mix it feels is the fairest and/or most effective for them.

This is a case of interstate commerce. And for 100 years the standard has been no tax is collected by the retailer unless they have a nexus in the state. The purpose for the nexus rule is that if you are actively serving customers intrastate, you have to obey the laws of the state. The implication is that if you have enough people here to have a store, you have enough to figure out local sales tax.

This is EXACTLY the kind of issue the Feds should be deciding, as the states all have different regulations regarding it. Of all the things that matter in interstate commerce, this is one of the truly important ones where the representatives of the collection of states should agree on a standard.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by DogDude · 2013-12-02 09:39 · Score: 2

Shopping at a retail store like Target, Sears, or Home Depot isn't really "keeping it local".

Right. The human beings in the store aren't local. The sales taxes aren't local. The property taxes aren't local. You're right. That's a *great* justification for not giving a shit about your local community. You should pat yourself on the back for being such a wonderful person.

--
I don't respond to AC's.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by nitehawk214 · 2013-12-02 09:39 · Score: 1

No, actually, Amazon has been fighting tooth and nail against sales tax for years.

Amazon has been fighting against having to collect individual sales tax, while endorsing a Federal framework like The Marketplace Fairness Act.

I guess I confused this for them being in support of sales tax collection.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by compro01 · 2013-12-02 09:40 · Score: 1

Or going to a local shop that aren't gouging pricks :

Cost of item : $4 Shipping : Nada. Sales Tax (10%) : $0.40 = Total : $4.40

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by ArbitraryName · 2013-12-02 09:41 · Score: 1

Sears & Roebuck had the same sales model as Amazon back in the late 1800's. They didn't collect sales tax either.

I would hope not, since general sales taxes in the US came about in the 20th century.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Petron · 2013-12-02 09:41 · Score: 1

That is *IF* somebody brings in an ad, then they verify it... So with a hassle, they will price match. Or I can just buy it from Amazon with no hassle.

And I did compare products that are exactly the same The cables were both in a bag, no mention of "Gold plated Connectors!!!!" or other such gimmick. But just for fun I did find an item to compare at 2 locations. Monsters University Pre-Order (Blueray + DVD) at Walmart and Amazon. Using 7.25% sales tax: Walmart (29.96 + 2.17 = $32.13) and Amazon (23.39 + 3.98 = 27.27). Amazon's total is cheaper than Walmart pre-tax price. Even with tax, it would still be cheaper. Plus I get to order it from my home, and have it on my door step on day of release.

Still: It's not Sales tax. It's the price.

--
if (it != oneThing) it = another;

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Petron · 2013-12-02 09:44 · Score: 1

I shopped around. No local computer shops. Only 2 places carried SATA cables. Best Buy, and Radio Shack. Both were $25.

I could also go to other online stores that offers free shipping. $4 + nada + nada + $4. Still cheaper.

--
if (it != oneThing) it = another;

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by nospam007 · 2013-12-02 09:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

Can't they just do the DocMorris trick?

Instead of selling and shipping stuff to clients, the shop registers a local sale (untaxed) and the client orders a pickup service to bring it to him. (fully automatic of course, but it's pickup, not shipping)

DocMorris did it because Germany did now allow sale by internet for pharmaceutics.

But just as you can cross the border, buy drugs and bring them home, you can also pay somebody to do that for you.

It's a fine legalese point but it worked.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by DogDude · 2013-12-02 09:48 · Score: 1

I shopped around. No local computer shops. Only 2 places carried SATA cables. Best Buy, and Radio Shack. Both were $25.

Jesus, what kind of shithole do you live in that doesn't have local computer shops?

--
I don't respond to AC's.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by jratcliffe · 2013-12-02 09:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is a good reason why the SCOTUS refused to hear this: It would be struck down. Article 1, section 9 of the US Constitution states: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." To put it simply: If I own a store in New Mexico, and I sell to somebody who lives in a different state... I don't collect any taxes or duties on that item. If I have a store in that state, I will have to collect taxes.

Your knowledge of the appellate process is matched by your understanding of interstate commerce law. If SCOTUS believes that something will be struck down, it DOES grant cert (e.g. accept the case). Refusing to hear the case means that the court believes the lower court decision was correctly decided. As for your comment on "no tax or duty," that would only be relevant if a state were placing taxes on out of state vendors that DON'T apply to in state vendors (i.e. NY wants Amazon to collect 20% sales tax, but Best Buy only has to charge 10%). In other words, it prohibits states from placing tariffs on the produce of other states to protect in-state producers. Again, there is ZERO debate that when a person in NY purchases something from Amazon, sales tax is owed on that transaction. The only question has been whether Amazon is obliged to collect that tax on behalf of the state, or whether the state needs to go directly to the purchaser to do it.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by hawguy · 2013-12-02 09:52 · Score: 2

Yes, but clothes and shoes aren't taxed at all until you hit $110, and you can always take the bus over to Paramus and pay no sales tax at all on clothes. Presumably, these same rules will Apply to online retailers. So in effect, nothing will change for those kinds of items.

If you aren't in the market for clothes, I should mention the New Jersey "Urban Enterprise Zones". Those only have 3.5% tax and are easy to get to from NYC.

This is exactly why Amazon doesn't want to pay state/local sales taxes: because the rules are so arbitrary and hard to track accurately, especially since they have a catalog of millions of items and the tax status of the same item varies by area... i.e. some areas may classify footwear as untaxable "clothing", but others may not. There are literally thousands of local tax districts across the USA and they don't all end on convenient city or zip code boundaries.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by bws111 · 2013-12-02 09:53 · Score: 1

I didn't say you did 'get it right now', did I? I said the only reason you would buy a SATA cable at BB was if you needed it right now. You obviously did not need it right now, so did not buy it there.

Best Buy is not complaining that people don't buy SATA cables there, they are complaining that people don't shop there WHEN THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS SALES TAX. Which is, in fact, often.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Petron · 2013-12-02 09:54 · Score: 1

Vast majority of the country is like this. Heck I the town I did live before only had a Radio Shack. About 5 years after I left a Best Buy opened and people freaked. If you wanted to find a computer shop, you had to drive about 30 mins.

--
if (it != oneThing) it = another;

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Petron · 2013-12-02 09:55 · Score: 1

Sears Catalog Operated in the 20th century as well. As did many other mail-order catalogs.

--
if (it != oneThing) it = another;

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by hawguy · 2013-12-02 09:59 · Score: 2

The problem is that this makes it a huge pain in the ass for smaller online retailers. Brick and mortar retailers only have to deal with the taxes on the particular state and local region in which their store is physically located. Any online retailer potentially has to deal with the taxes in every state and region in the world (anywhere a customer could order from).

This means that only the larger online retailers will have the infrastructure to stay in business. If I'm starting a mom-and-pop online service, I'm either going to have to pay a 3rd-party to deal with all the states' and cities' tax laws or go out of business. Because there is no way some little operation is going to be able to handle collecting all the taxes from Nowhereville, Iowa (including know what they are and where to remit them).

If online merchants were required to collect sales taxes, Paypal and other merchant payment solution providers would offer sales tax calculation as another service for their customers so small merchants wouldn't be left out, they'd just have to subscribe to a sales-tax calculation service if their payment provider doesn't already offer it - it could even become a value-added solution for UPS and/or Fedex as a part of their shipping calculators.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by MightyYar · 2013-12-02 10:00 · Score: 1

It is a complete nightmare. I think the federal government should collect a flat percentage (something like 5%) and then distribute it to the customer's locality (state, local, whatever). "Use tax" is the kind of stupid that only a government could enact, and making online retailers deal with so many arcane rules is overly burdensome, IMHO.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by ganjadude · 2013-12-02 10:03 · Score: 1

I dont want the fed touching any more of our money and redistributing it anywhere. The rules if we play by them work just fine

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same

Re:Why is this so difficult? by AK+Marc · 2013-12-02 10:05 · Score: 1

They already do this, and can move to Oregon and Alaska for 0% tax.

What should happen in this case is for Amazon to not pay taxes to the states, and wait for them to sue Amazon. That'll go up the appeals chain.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by wiredlogic · 2013-12-02 10:12 · Score: 1

you can always take the bus over to Paramus

There is more to NY state than just one city near New Jersey.

--
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.

Just give us one fucking sales tax rate already by FreeUser · 2013-12-02 10:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Well, that is the current dream of many.. find ways to have all the benefits of operating in the US without paying for it. Taxes are something that it is in one's best interest to have other people paying.

I don't mind paying taxes, and wouldn't mind paying a standard VAT to sell anywhere in the US. But the local US sales tax laws are a complete clusterfuck. When I'm selling books in various locations, I have to dig up the tax rate for that location It's a hassle, but doable, but some states are really fucked up.

New York is one of them.

Sales tax varies depending on which county, in some cases which city or which part of the city you're in. Tax rates coded to zip codes don't work...some zipcodes span localities with wildly varying sales tax rates. I'lliinois is better, but still, rates vary depending on whether you're in Chicago proper, one of the suburbs, or one of the localities downstate.

Multiply this complexity by 50 states and you begin to realize what a complete clusterfuck it is for any small online buisiness to try and cope with. Shipping a package to Bumblefuck, Nebraska? What's the sales tax? How about Buttfuck, New York? Good luck.

Impose a national VAT of x percent, and kick back some or all of it to the states, and ban local sales taxes of any kind. This needs to be vastly simplified. Even if it were 50 states and 50 different sales tax rates that would be doable, but with many dozens of different sales tax venues with varying rates in New York alone, and plenty of states like Illiinois with a few cities that impose their own surtax to the state rate, figuring this crap out is a nightmare on the best of days. If every state is allowed to impose its taxes on all online folks, only the big players like Amazon will be able to cope. The rest of us, and most new startups, will crumble under the burden.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Re:Just give us one fucking sales tax rate already by DogDude · 2013-12-02 12:01 · Score: 1

The rest of us, and most new startups, will crumble under the burden.

No, you just pay a service to handle the sales tax for you. If you can't afford to do that, then you don't have a viable business.

--
I don't respond to AC's.
Re:Just give us one fucking sales tax rate already by rahvin112 · 2013-12-02 13:15 · Score: 1

I've always thought the "millions of separate tax districts" argument was interesting. It's a valid argument if you do everything by hand. It's not a valid argument when you have software that can calculate the tax automatically, the software even makes it trivial to submit it to the taxing authority. IMO the "millions of separate tax districts" died with software, and it's completely meaningless when dealing with huge internet retailers like Amazon. They have the resources, they have the software, they choose not to because it's a price advantage to them.
Re:Just give us one fucking sales tax rate already by BlueStrat · 2013-12-02 16:13 · Score: 1

The rest of us, and most new startups, will crumble under the burden.

No, you just pay a service to handle the sales tax for you. If you can't afford to do that, then you don't have a viable business.
Yeah, who (besides serfs) needs all those small, privately-owned, independent, hard to monitor and control businesses that have existed for ages, around anyways? Better and easier for government that all merchandise and services are provided by the megacorps. It certainly would cut down on Mom & Pop competition for Walmart, Amazon, and other big-box stores and megacorps.
Whenever cost & complexity is added to doing business by government, it hits the smallest players first and hardest.
When little kids can't even run a lemonade stand in their home's driveway on a summer afternoon any more without dealing with the same regulatory burdens and costs that a McDonald's does, there's something wrong.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:Just give us one fucking sales tax rate already by DogDude · 2013-12-02 16:24 · Score: 1

Oh, quit with the "regulatory burden" bullshit. It's a TINY burden in exchange for being able to sell to every person in the country. You wouldn't know "regulatory burden" if it hit you in the head. If you're too stupid or too lazy to figure out how to pay the taxes you're supposed to pay, then you're too stupid or lazy to be in business.

When little kids can't even run a lemonade stand in their home's driveway on a summer afternoon any more without dealing with the same regulatory burdens and costs that a McDonald's does, there's something wrong.

You're right. That would suck. What does that have to do with this discussion?

--
I don't respond to AC's.
Re:Just give us one fucking sales tax rate already by BlueStrat · 2013-12-02 16:48 · Score: 1

Oh, quit with the "regulatory burden" bullshit. It's a TINY burden in exchange for being able to sell to every person in the country. You wouldn't know "regulatory burden" if it hit you in the head. If you're too stupid or too lazy to figure out how to pay the taxes you're supposed to pay, then you're too stupid or lazy to be in business.
Ah, a fact-free ad hominem attack. I see you've thought this issue out logically & thoroughly. Thanks for your in-depth practical analysis. You've added tremendous value to the discussion.

When little kids can't even run a lemonade stand in their home's driveway on a summer afternoon any more without dealing with the same regulatory burdens and costs that a McDonald's does, there's something wrong.

You're right. That would suck. What does that have to do with this discussion?
Umm, "that" is one facet of "regulatory burden" that you call "bullshit" that has real consequences for regular people.
And yes it does suck, and you, judging by your reply, seem to want more of that suck-age in everyone's life.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:Just give us one fucking sales tax rate already by DogDude · 2013-12-02 18:09 · Score: 1

Spoken like a true non-business owner. I said it's not a burden, and you call that "fact-free". Either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you find that paying taxes is too difficult for you to figure out.

You say that a child's lemonade stand has similar regulatory burdens as McDonald's. Fuck you. You're an idiot.

--
I don't respond to AC's.
Re:Just give us one fucking sales tax rate already by BlueStrat · 2013-12-02 18:33 · Score: 1

Spoken like a true non-business owner. I said it's not a burden, and you call that "fact-free".
Yes, it's fact-free. It's simply a statement with no support.
I *am* a business owner.

You say that a child's lemonade stand has similar regulatory burdens as McDonald's. Fuck you. You're an idiot.
And there you go again with the ad hominem attacks.
I guess it also sucks when you don't have the intellect to carry on an adversarial conversation without giving up on reason & logic and having to resort to name-calling out of pure desperation.
I pity those such as you, as there is no cure for your kind of affliction.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:Just give us one fucking sales tax rate already by Solandri · 2013-12-02 19:50 · Score: 1

To address the counterpoints brought up:

- Software does not fix the problem. You still have to update the tax tables. Any city anywhere in the country can change its tax rate overnight, and your software has to be updated to reflect it. So simply having software isn't enough. You need to constantly monitor the legislation produced by every state, county, and city in the country to make note of and update any changed tax rate. That's a solution which unfairly discriminates against smaller businesses.

- A paid service which collates and updates the tax tables doesn't fix the problem either. Every one of these services indemnifies itself against damages caused by an error. If they make a typo or miss an update, and you fail to collect $1000 in taxes because of it, you owe the $1000 in taxes, not them. They make the error, but you pay the costs. That's not a solution that works.

The proposed federal legislation backed by Amazon actually fixed this the right way. It established a central federal database. All states, counties, and cities were responsible for updating this database if they changed their tax rate. A business could then query the database and pull out the correct tax rate. If the state/county/city didn't update the database correctly, then it's their fault and they're out the money. If the business didn't pull the right tax rate from the database, then it's their fault and they're out the money. No passing the buck or shifting the blame - the party which makes the error pays the penalty. That's a solution that works.
Re:Just give us one fucking sales tax rate already by cdrudge · 2013-12-03 02:35 · Score: 1

IMO the "millions of separate tax districts" died with software
Well I'm glad that was settled 30+ years ago when PC use skyrocketed in businesses of all sizes. Or if you want to be more forgiving, the last decade and a half after the Internet explosion of the mid to later 90s. Except its even more of an issue now then what it was 15 or 30+ years ago.
Just because you have "software" don't magically solve the issues. There's 11,000+ tax jurisdictions in the US and many of them don't line up to geographical/governmental/political boundaries such as just a zip code to quickly and easily identify which rate may apply. Add in multiple different categories of goods, how the goods may be use (commercial, personal, medical, etc), exempt, partial exemption, and progressive tax rates, use tax vs sales tax, are services and/or shipping taxable...it's a nightmare.
Yeah software can make that easier so you aren't looking everything up by hand. But whatever sales software that you use has to make use of whatever data source you have setup for your type(s) of goods. Plus your data must be continually kept up to date which either requires significant effort on dedicated employee(s), or subscribing to some type of a service that hopefully tracks everything correctly.
All this also doesn't even take into account the filing of the sales tax that hopefully you didn't screw up (but probably did at least in some small way). Maybe it's not a huge deal for Amazon to handle for their direct sales. But what about small mom and pop businesses that just use Amazon for the storefront but now are considered as having a nexus in all states? Or if they have their own storefront that is subject to internet sales/use tax collection?
Re:Just give us one fucking sales tax rate already by DogDude · 2013-12-03 04:05 · Score: 1

Wow. I really hope you're not a product of public schools.

--
I don't respond to AC's.
Re:Just give us one fucking sales tax rate already by Vitriol+Angst · 2013-12-03 06:21 · Score: 1

They should have either no VAT on any stores, or VAT all the same across the board.
1) VAT creates a "lot of little taxes" which means a lot more work (to track and get the tax) and less transactions. This is a poor replacement for import taxes (tariffs) especially on wage-slave countries and those without environmental laws. If you increase the cost of imports, it helps manufacturing in your country and balance of trade. Lowering this has only seen greater profits that don't get shared.
2) Allowing states to race each other to the bottom reduces revenues. States can compete on better services. Allowing them to compete on Tax Havens only creates bidding wars and situations where companies have factories and taxes "for free" for 5 years. It's supposed to be made up for by wages and having people work, but we keep seeing those go lower as well. So less revenue and more profits that disappear from the economy.

--
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Re:Just give us one fucking sales tax rate already by BlueStrat · 2013-12-06 18:49 · Score: 1

The proposed federal legislation backed by Amazon actually fixed this the right way. It established a central federal database.
Will this live up to the same high standards for Federal projects exemplified by the Obamacare website and back-end infrastructure?
I have no confidence in them pulling it off even to the extent the Obamacare website/back-end is working without multi-year delays, staggering cost over-runs and increases in national debt, scandals, massive political corruption, etc. etc.
In the end, it will still unfairly burden smaller businesses over the large players. But hey, apparently a lot of people wouldn't mind it if alternatives to the big-box, big-chain stores disappeared at an even more alarming rate along with the jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities, not to mention the charm of mom-&-pop shops and stores to visit, and the variety to the world that they provide.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by PopeRatzo · 2013-12-02 10:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Last weekend, I saw someone walk into a brick and mortar store and using an iPhone app, take a picture and order the product on Amazon, after taking up a salesperson's time answering questions.

We can argue over whether there should be any sales tax at all, but I can't see how you can argue that some companies should have to pay it and others shouldn't.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Wookact · 2013-12-02 10:16 · Score: 1

I would actually rather buy something in person then online, I am even fine with paying the 7% tax. My main issue is 90% of the time I cannot find the item I want in local retailers. That and the online price tends to be cheaper even when not looking at sales tax. Frankly I would rather purchase it in person not only because of instant gratification but in case the item is a dud. I would MUCH MUCH rather deal with returning an item to the local retailer and talking to someone in person, then having to send it somewhere just to have them claim I damaged it in some way.

You can return anything you purchase to the local walmart/target/bestbuy with no issues whatsoever. I have never had any issues returning something in person, the only time I have ever had any issues returning something was when I had to send it back to Amazon or Newegg. Then it is like pulling teeth to get your money back.

Re:Unless I'm mistaken by AK+Marc · 2013-12-02 10:17 · Score: 1

Almost every state with sales tax requires you pay it for online purchases, but it's rarely paid. And some places don't have a sales tax, or have a sales tax without income tax. So not every state is sales plus income tax.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by ArbitraryName · 2013-12-02 10:28 · Score: 1

Wait, UPS isn't local? I'm pretty sure the human beings in the UPS distribution center are local (and are paid better than retail worked). Pretty sure they also pay property taxes. Pretty sure UPS also pays a LOT of gasoline taxes. Locally

What an idiotic comment.

yeah, but by swschrad · 2013-12-02 10:32 · Score: 1

North Dakota /vs/ Western Electric said any business presence in the state meant they need to pay sales taxes. that was upheld in federal district court, and WE had to pay oodles of tax on building the Safeguard ABM sites' electronics.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

you're probably breaking the rules :) by Chirs · 2013-12-02 10:45 · Score: 1

I'm guessing myself, like many people put up with the 2x day delay in getting something (delayed gratification) due to not having to pay sales tax on orders from Amazon.

I'm up in Canada. Around here, if you order something online and the store doesn't collect the provincial sales tax you're actually supposed to fill out a form and send it in yourself. I've never actually heard of anyone doing this though....

Re:you're probably breaking the rules :) by macbeth66 · 2013-12-02 14:07 · Score: 1

Same here in New York

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by yeshuawatso · 2013-12-02 10:49 · Score: 1

Fort Smith (where I live) is 9.75% (was 9.25% until the recent tax increase at the State level). 9.375% (no 9.875%) is for "prepared" foods. Basically it's a tax on restaurants to pay for terrible tourism shortfalls and things like a convention center that no one really uses but still costs the city over a million dollars to maintain. Non-prepared foods are taxed much lower since the state only taxes it at 1.5% instead of the normal 6.5% for everything else.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by MightyYar · 2013-12-02 10:53 · Score: 2

What rules? That's the whole problem right now - the rules are unclear, non-uniform, and burdensome. There are certain things a federal government is meant for. Regulating inter-state commerce is one of the most basic.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-02 10:53 · Score: 3, Informative

There is no proof that reducing tax liability on business makes consumers pay less. Demand drives price. Tax has nothing to do with price.

Giving business tax breaks just puts more money in the pockets of business owners. They'll still charge the same and pay their workers the same because those costs have nothing to do with tax liability.

I suggest that if a business can't operate without handouts that it does not deserve to be in business. That is OK because other more efficient and innovative business that don't rely on handouts will take it's place.

See what I did there?

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by DogDude · 2013-12-02 10:57 · Score: 1

That's terrible. I'm honestly sorry for you. I guess I live in an awesome place. I can get everything (not just computer shit) I need locally without going to any big box stores or buying online. I simply wouldn't live in a place, that say, had no local computer stores, or no local book stores, etc.

--
I don't respond to AC's.

wtf are you talking about? none are in MS, reasons by raymorris · 2013-12-02 11:01 · Score: 1

What the heck are you talking about? None of those companies is in Mississippi, in terms of business operations or where they are incorporated. That's for the exact reasons I mentioned - MS doesn't have the internet infrastructure, the skilled workers wanting the jobs, etc.

They are in fact in California and Washington state, so it makes sense for them to pay taxes in California and Washington.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by viperidaenz · 2013-12-02 11:15 · Score: 1

Just because Amazon doesn't pay tax in all states, doesn't mean another online shop isn't cheaper than a brick and mortar store.

I don't live in a country with stupid state tax rules, since there are no states. Online stores are pretty much always cheaper though, and they pay the same sales taxes. They also deliver to your door the next business day.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by viperidaenz · 2013-12-02 11:17 · Score: 1

So.... how is it going to change competition, as the parent poster was claiming?

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by viperidaenz · 2013-12-02 11:19 · Score: 1

That's a good theory. When was the last time increased tax revenue was spent on worthwhile things?

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by MightyYar · 2013-12-02 11:52 · Score: 1

I'd have to disagree. ;p

But seriously, it is hard to think of a state with more oppressive taxes than New York. I honestly don't know why the people there put up with it.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Eristone · 2013-12-02 12:26 · Score: 1

Umm.. (eeep - I'm sticking up for Fry's - must be burning some karma somewhere) Fry's doesn't require an Ad - I use a phone app that does the price comparison for local stores and pull up alternate prices and they will match after figuring in shipping costs.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by swillden · 2013-12-02 12:34 · Score: 1

I don't pick Amazon because I "save" 7.25% in sales tax.

Of course not, because you don't save it. Like any good citizen you dutifully report it on your annual state income tax form, and pay the applicable sales tax then.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by mrchaotica · 2013-12-02 12:44 · Score: 1

May 25, 1961.

--

"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

The simple answer by jonwil · 2013-12-02 13:23 · Score: 1

Amazon just needs to say "no more affiliates based in New York" and they wont have to pay the tax.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by manu0601 · 2013-12-02 13:52 · Score: 1

Tax money is your money. It should not just vanish. It is supposed to build and maintain public goods and services. If it is not the case, then it means you failed your collective duty as a citizen to control what your government does with your money.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Rakarra · 2013-12-02 13:59 · Score: 1

People don't pick Amazon or Overstock to save on sales tax... they do it because the prices are cheaper. When I head to BestBuy and find a SATA cable listed for 25 bucks, and Amazon has it for 4.50... I don't pick Amazon because I "save" 7.25% in sales tax.

The prices on some things, but not all, are cheaper. The BestBuy and Amazon cables are rarely the same; they're different products.
Not that the BestBuy ones are worth the cost, just that the brick-and-mortar stores seem to fall for the rip-off manufacturers like Monster when it comes to things like cables and peripherals.

Re:only because by Rakarra · 2013-12-02 14:04 · Score: 1

American Revolutionary War was started over taxes.

It had many reasons, one being taxation without representation. The Founders were fine with taxation -with- representation.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by viperidaenz · 2013-12-02 14:28 · Score: 1

In a state of 10,000,000 people, that tax money is only one ten millionth mine.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by manu0601 · 2013-12-02 17:09 · Score: 2

The tax money of the 10,000,000 other peoples belongs to 10,000,000 people. In other words, you can more by being many than being alone. This is why society exists and taxes are acceptable. Now if taxes do not benefit tax payers, there is a problem to solve.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by Vicarius · 2013-12-02 17:10 · Score: 1

... Anyway, I'm not aware of states with 10% sales tax - usually it is about half of that, and the highest seems to be 7.5% in CA. To get to 10%, I have to scroll down the list and find the highest state taxes and combine them with the highest local taxes.

In Illinois it is 6.25% which can have an additional 8.25% tax for "prepared foods", bringing total tax to 15.5%. Alaska has flat 12% sales tax for everything.

There is about a dozen states that have sales tax of over 9%. This is just state sales tax without additional city/county specific sales taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by MightyYar · 2013-12-03 00:40 · Score: 1

Well, so far Amazon isn't a restaurant, so I don't think they will fear the prepared foods taxes :)

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.

Just stop selling in New York. Problem solved. by AndyKron · 2013-12-03 01:28 · Score: 1

Just stop selling in New York. Problem solved.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by 45mm · 2013-12-03 02:58 · Score: 1

Amazon has been fighting against having to collect individual sales tax, while endorsing a Federal framework like The Marketplace Fairness Act.

Amazon wants this for at least two reasons:

1) they don't have to employ a legion of tax specialists / lawyers for sales tax (which cuts at the bottom line)
2) they're betting the Federal framework will result in a lower overall rate (which keeps their competitive price advantage over brick-and-mortar)

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-12-03 03:22 · Score: 1

LMOL o.k. Potsy. The reason people shop on-line has to do with selection. When you repeatedly walk into a store and they don't have what you are looking for (*ahem* Walmart) - you go online and buy it there. Sales tax does not factor into the purchasing decision.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-12-03 03:40 · Score: 1

If you understood the law and the issue you can. Ignorance is not an excuse. The law - which you should know by now - is that unless a business had a physical presence in a particular state, that state cannot collect sales tax. That's federal law. States created a new tax, called use tax, to circumvent the federal law. Use tax is not a sales tax, even though it works like one. However states cannot force retailers to collect use tax. People have to volunteer that information on their state income tax form. It's not enforceable other than by ways of a income tax audit - which is not likely to happen since the states do not have the resources for that.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by lsatenstein · 2013-12-03 06:07 · Score: 1

Or consumers will just end up paying more, since more tax will be collected.

I guess the tax goes into the general revenues, to help defray the cost of maintaining the state. After all, you get state troopers, bridges, roads, and more, and all this is not free.
So, what is the big deal. Here in Quebec, where I live, the shipping costs are also added to the purchase price, so the extra tax on the 6-7 dollars adds up to another 15%.

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by PopeRatzo · 2013-12-03 10:29 · Score: 1

Because Amazon lacks a physical presence in the state?

I don't know, that big warehouse out on 290 looks pretty physical to me.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by PopeRatzo · 2013-12-03 10:46 · Score: 1

I'm curious: you don't think a big building full of Amazon inventory is a "physical presence"?

They use to call them, "warehouses".

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:only because by ArbitraryName · 2013-12-03 12:32 · Score: 1

Wow. Your "assurance" is pretty worthless. The Bureau of Revenue Service was officially renamed to the Internal Revenue Service in 1953. They had been using the name for a long time, as you can see on this Form 1040 from 1918. The organization itself has existed continuously since 1862.

Re:Finally a flat playing ground by micahraleigh · 2013-12-04 04:39 · Score: 1

Wow, you really won that won.

Nice!

Slashdot Mirror

Supreme Court Declines Case On Making Online Retailers Collect Sales Taxes

216 of 293 comments (clear)