Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules States Can Require Online Retailers To Collect Sales Tax (npr.org)
New submitter zippo01 shares a report: Online shopping will soon become more expensive after the U.S. Supreme court ruled Thursday that states can require internet retailers to collect sales taxes. The 5-4 decision broke with 50 years' worth of legal rulings that barred states from imposing sales taxes on most purchases their residents make from out-of-state retailers. The decision was a victory for South Dakota, which had asked the court to uphold its recently passed law imposing an internet sales tax. "Our state is losing millions for education, health care and infrastructure, and our citizens are harmed by an uneven playing field," said Marty Jackley, South Dakota's attorney general.
You'll, of course, make it illegal to use this money for anything else, right?
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
Also known as the Accounting Software Developers And Consultants Permanent Employment Act.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The vote breakdown on this decision was really weird. Voting in favor of requiring online retailers to collect sales tax were Justices Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Ginsburg and Gorsuch. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined Chief Justice Roberts in the dissent.
I wonder if Trump ever foresaw his boy Gorsuch and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joining on a 5-4 decision.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Remember this the next time Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch or Clarence Thomas talk about the following the original text of the constitution.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
In general I am OK with states charging sales tax for online purchases. As Sales Tax takes advantages of both Progressive and Regressive taxing. Being that the Rich will in general buy more so they will be funding more to the government, while taking the simplicity of a fixed rate tax.
Online Purchases still need to be shipped to the sates, thus needing to use its infrastructure to deliver them. So all in all in this day in age Taxing internet purchases is perfectly reasonable.
However the argument that the tax revenue is hurting any particular initiative is more to blame on bad leadership, or misaligned priorities. If the state wants more money to Education, then they would find a way to fund it better. Even if it means cutting money on services it deems as lower priority, and the leadership will need to take the responsibility of saying that that service doesn't deserve the money over Education. Also their are other taxing methods that can be applied to help better fund thing, all at their own tradeoffs as well.
Sales tax on internet is an easy win with low political repercussion. Because the extra cost of sales tax, isn't going to hurt the economy. because if they want the product and it is prices closer to a local store. They may want to go to the store to buy it and get the convince of getting it now, and returning it the same day. If it is a hard to find item in the area, you can still get it online, just for 5-10% more.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The constitution doesn't grant states power, it *limits* federal power.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Use taxes are very common... though not often paid.
Here in WA we have places that have a 10% sales tax rate, and it is not uncommon for people to take a drive down to Portland for some big purchases, were there is no sales tax.
Hell, a neighbor of mine used to have their cars registered there to avoid WA taxes.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Remember this the next time Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch or Clarence Thomas talk about the following the original text of the constitution.
Heh... Yes this is a solid example of why originalists are so full of shit. It's almost always an excuse to justify some sort of behavior that is abhorrent under current social norms or to try stem the tide of political change that some people (usually conservatives) disapprove of. Originalists tend to ignore this principle when it is convenient for them but shout loudly about it when it helps whatever cause they are pushing at the time.
In this case internet commerce has changed the game dramatically and the laws were written in an earlier era with different circumstances. I haven't looked closely enough at this case to decide whether I agree with the decision but it seems clear enough that the old understanding regarding sales tax collection between states no longer makes much sense in the internet era. Change has to happen one way or another so such a decision isn't surprising even if it ultimately turns out to be a poor one. Maybe this will force Congress to actually address the elephant in the room and establish a new framework for States to collect sales tax that makes sense. (Dare to dream...)
The only problem I see with the state taxing online purchases is that small online retailers will have extra overhead to meet tax requirements for all states.
Small businesses now have to navigate several hundred different tax schemes (states have multiple tax zones, etc), That's going to be expensive. This ruling only benefits the big players such as Amazon by placing another burden on their smaller competitors. That's why Bezos dropped his opposition to it.
It's not nearly that simple.
There is an area in Illinois (around Chicago + some) where a Snickers bar gets taxed less than a package of Starbust, because anything that contains flour does not qualify for the "candy" tax. There are strange laws on sales taxes in many municipalities all across the country. Don't think for a second that they don't expect those to all be followed to the letter.
This ruling makes collecting sales taxes in America just as complicated as managing tariffs for international shipments. Hopefully minus most of the corruption.
They have not ruled that states can require online retailers to collect sales tax in general. They have overturned the argument that there is no nexus because of No Physical Presence, and Nexus can be established in other ways for large National retailers such as Quill or Amazon, for example. The court ruled there --- This quantity of business could not have occurred unless the seller availed itself of the substantial privilege of carrying on business in South Dakota.
And respondents are large, national companies that undoubtedly maintain an extensive virtual presence. Thus, the substantial nexus requirement of Complete Auto is satisfied in this case
You will also need a table that lists every item to determine if it is taxable or not. Every 'item' is not taxed the same in every state/county/city. This table is going to get really, really big...
And that needs to be implemented correctly by every online business with a presence in the US.
Not necessarily. I'm fine with a state being able to collect sales tax on online purchases, but it's the state's responsibility to provide a simple mechanism that the seller can use to determine what the sales tax should be. A different API for different states would explicitly be considered not simple. There would have to be something like a web service hosted by e.g. the FTC, where the seller just submits address and item name/description and gets back the tax rate. If the state can't provide the necessary information, then they'll have to simplify their tax code before they can collect sales tax from online purchases.
The only problem I see with the state taxing online purchases is that small online retailers will have extra overhead to meet tax requirements for all states.
The South Dakota statute in question only required collection/remittance of South Dakota sales tax if the online retailer had more than $100k in sales in South Dakota and/or more than 200 annual transactions in South Dakota. The Supreme Court specifically discussed those thresholds in its analysis, which will be a signal to other states that if they follow suit, they'll need to have some sort of reasonable minimum threshold as well. It would be hard for a truly small retailer to exceed that threshold in a single state in the first place, and then if they did it would only apply to transactions in that state.
When politicians designate new tax revenues as going towards some worthy cause (lottery profits for education, for example), rather than increasing the money spent on education, the lottery money instead offsets other tax revenues, freeing them up to be spent on politicians pet projects.
If the lottery generates $20M for education, the net result is that $20M in lottery money takes the place of $20M that used to come from property taxes.
Politicians expect you to think that the new revenue is in addition to what was already being spent, but it isn't.
Ken