If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Big Story) NewsFlash US Senate passes Internet Sales Tax Bill. Why? Because fark you, that's why   (bigstory.ap.org) divider line 573
    More: NewsFlash, Senate, internet, senate passes, sales taxes, D-Ill, United States  
•       •       •

16631 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2013 at 10:06 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

573 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-07 10:46:14 PM

feckingmorons: 3) There is no software that will be provided free of charge, I have no idea where that idea came from. The state of California and all its taxing jurisdictions are not going to write code for every POS and webcart system. The idea that there will be free software is complete and utter nonsense.

4)Again, there is no free software. The burden for tax compliance falls squarely on the merchant.


LOL!  You linked to the farking bill, too!

States must provide
software free of charge for remote sellers that calculates sales and use taxes due on each transaction at the time the transaction is completed, that files sales and use tax returns, and that is updated to reflect rate changes as described in subparagraph
 
2013-05-07 11:06:17 PM

BarkingUnicorn: feckingmorons: 3) There is no software that will be provided free of charge, I have no idea where that idea came from. The state of California and all its taxing jurisdictions are not going to write code for every POS and webcart system. The idea that there will be free software is complete and utter nonsense.

4)Again, there is no free software. The burden for tax compliance falls squarely on the merchant.

LOL!  You linked to the farking bill, too!

States must provide
software free of charge for remote sellers that calculates sales and use taxes due on each transaction at the time the transaction is completed, that files sales and use tax returns, and that is updated to reflect rate changes as described in subparagraph


Crickets....
 
2013-05-07 11:23:55 PM

R.A.Danny: BarkingUnicorn: feckingmorons: 3) There is no software that will be provided free of charge, I have no idea where that idea came from. The state of California and all its taxing jurisdictions are not going to write code for every POS and webcart system. The idea that there will be free software is complete and utter nonsense.

4)Again, there is no free software. The burden for tax compliance falls squarely on the merchant.

LOL!  You linked to the farking bill, too!

States must provide
software free of charge for remote sellers that calculates sales and use taxes due on each transaction at the time the transaction is completed, that files sales and use tax returns, and that is updated to reflect rate changes as described in subparagraph

Crickets....


Yeah cuz that's gonna happen. I'm sure states are going to pay for Ebay and Google to build a giant sales tax database/application and incorporate it into their sales systems and keep it updated. YUUUP. (Amazon could probably add it in easier at this point though).

I think that's a provision where the states are going to get the estimate on developing said software and then opt out of the whole damn thing somehow. Ebay can't even manage to do county by county for ONE state which is a PITA every quarter. If I actually had good sales figures it would hurt.
 
2013-05-07 11:25:14 PM

R.A.Danny: BarkingUnicorn: feckingmorons: 3) There is no software that will be provided free of charge, I have no idea where that idea came from. The state of California and all its taxing jurisdictions are not going to write code for every POS and webcart system. The idea that there will be free software is complete and utter nonsense.

4)Again, there is no free software. The burden for tax compliance falls squarely on the merchant.

LOL!  You linked to the farking bill, too!

States must provide
software free of charge for remote sellers that calculates sales and use taxes due on each transaction at the time the transaction is completed, that files sales and use tax returns, and that is updated to reflect rate changes as described in subparagraph

Crickets....


He'll be back soon claiming that he was talking about software to integrate this crappy State software into existing e-commerce and accounting systems.
 
2013-05-07 11:25:23 PM

BarkingUnicorn: feckingmorons: 3) There is no software that will be provided free of charge, I have no idea where that idea came from. The state of California and all its taxing jurisdictions are not going to write code for every POS and webcart system. The idea that there will be free software is complete and utter nonsense.

4)Again, there is no free software. The burden for tax compliance falls squarely on the merchant.

LOL!  You linked to the farking bill, too!

States must provide
software free of charge for remote sellers that calculates sales and use taxes due on each transaction at the time the transaction is completed, that files sales and use tax returns, and that is updated to reflect rate changes as described in subparagraph


Yeah, lets be realistic that can be an excel plug in that will calculate the sales tax on whatever amount you enter, and then compiles a report for filing and then sends that report to one state. It is not required to be integrated into your POS. The software provided by the states would be essentially useless. I did read the bill and free useless software is just that. Do you think Nebraska has developers on staff who can code an update to zencart, and X-Cart, shopdaddy, ePOS, eTailer, and the hundreds if not thousands of other ePOS systems?

The states will be maintaining their tax jurisdictions and the vendors will be updating their tools to consume those tables and integrating it with their products. It won't be free.

As I said before, the idea that the states will provide software that will be useful to ecommerce merchants is nonsense. Those merchants who could use some stand alone application from each state are already exempt because of their size.

It is absurd to think the states are going to join together to produce a software product that will bolt on to each ePOS. You are indeed living in a dream world.

The burden of tax compliance always falls on the taxpayer. Merchants will collect the taxes and be responsible for forwarding it to the 49 respective states (or DC and Guam) that collect sales tax. American Samoa, Delaware, Oregon, New Hampshire and Montana do not impose any sales or use taxes.

Most states require efile, most states require electronic payment, and most platforms have the ability to consume tax tables from the states, create data for tax returns, and submit those returns electronically as it is, however the burden will be on merchants to upgrade their ePOS to cover all the states, not just those in which they have nexus. It will complicate tax compliance, it will not be free, and those costs will be passed along to the consumer - who should be paying the tax themselves already.
 
2013-05-07 11:28:19 PM

R.A.Danny: BarkingUnicorn: feckingmorons: 3) There is no software that will be provided free of charge, I have no idea where that idea came from. The state of California and all its taxing jurisdictions are not going to write code for every POS and webcart system. The idea that there will be free software is complete and utter nonsense.

4)Again, there is no free software. The burden for tax compliance falls squarely on the merchant.

LOL!  You linked to the farking bill, too!

States must provide
software free of charge for remote sellers that calculates sales and use taxes due on each transaction at the time the transaction is completed, that files sales and use tax returns, and that is updated to reflect rate changes as described in subparagraph

Crickets....



Sorry, I was making a grilled cheese and soup. I will try to monitor fark more frequently.

Do you really think that the states are going to like this unfunded mandate. If they could collect the use tax they would already be doing it. Now they are ordered by the federal government to create a software application. Truly what idiot would use what the states created?

That provision in and of itself is burdensome. It is simply better to require the states to provide tax rate data and accept remittances through one central office than expect them to create software. States are not in the software development business so they will farm that task out to some consulting firm (like the one I work for).
 
2013-05-07 11:30:06 PM

BarkingUnicorn: He'll be back soon claiming that he was talking about software to integrate this crappy State software into existing e-commerce and accounting systems.


No, that will be done by the vendors based on what the state tax data is.

Do you truly think that some store in Cleveland that sells yo-yos (and $1.001MM) will get 40 some different software applications to manage its sales tax collections? Really?
 
2013-05-07 11:30:43 PM

feckingmorons: Do you really think that the states are going to like this unfunded mandate.


Someone correct me if I'm wrong but aren't unfunded mandates illegal in the first place?

Seriously, I thought that they were/are but I'm not even a GED lawyer.
 
2013-05-07 11:31:35 PM

R.A.Danny: feckingmorons: Do you really think that the states are going to like this unfunded mandate.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but aren't unfunded mandates illegal in the first place?

Seriously, I thought that they were/are but I'm not even a GED lawyer.


Beats me. They should be.
 
2013-05-07 11:39:26 PM

ladyfortuna: R.A.Danny: BarkingUnicorn: feckingmorons: 3) There is no software that will be provided free of charge, I have no idea where that idea came from. The state of California and all its taxing jurisdictions are not going to write code for every POS and webcart system. The idea that there will be free software is complete and utter nonsense.

4)Again, there is no free software. The burden for tax compliance falls squarely on the merchant.

LOL!  You linked to the farking bill, too!

States must provide
software free of charge for remote sellers that calculates sales and use taxes due on each transaction at the time the transaction is completed, that files sales and use tax returns, and that is updated to reflect rate changes as described in subparagraph

Crickets....

Yeah cuz that's gonna happen. I'm sure states are going to pay for Ebay and Google to build a giant sales tax database/application and incorporate it into their sales systems and keep it updated. YUUUP. (Amazon could probably add it in easier at this point though).

I think that's a provision where the states are going to get the estimate on developing said software and then opt out of the whole damn thing somehow. Ebay can't even manage to do county by county for ONE state which is a PITA every quarter. If I actually had good sales figures it would hurt.


You may be right.  Nothing in the bill requires a State to participate.  It only says, "If you want to go after remote sellers, you have to do this..."  If the State does it wrong, it can't collect from the sellers.

The diabolical part is that every State's software  must handle all States' sales taxes. Sellers need only one program, not one for each participating State.
 
2013-05-07 11:45:34 PM

BarkingUnicorn: The diabolical part is that every State's software  must handle all States' sales taxes. Sellers need only one program, not one for each participating State


I don't see that anywhere in the proposed legislation.

Another very important problem is that states have different rules as to what items sales taxes is imposed upon. Some states tax shoes, some don't. Some tax food, some don't. Each item will have to be categorized as taxable or non-taxable for each state they ship to. If it were all tennis rackets are taxed in all states it would be easy, but some jurisdictions might only tax sporting goods over $75.

The idea is simply unworkable and to suggest that any state could produce software that could do what the law requires is nonsense.
 
2013-05-07 11:48:42 PM
feckingmorons:

Do you really think that the states are going to like this unfunded mandate. If they could collect the use tax they would already be doing it. Now they are ordered by the federal government to create a software application. Truly what idiot would use what the states created?

That provision in and of itself is burdensome. It is simply better to require the states to provide tax rate data and accept remittances through one central office than expect them to create software. States are not in the software development business so they will farm that task out to some consulting firm (like the one I work for).


Uh-huh.  If you ever get around to reading the bill, search for "certified software provider."  Better still, talk to your employer; I thought you guys already had software that does all of this,  just ready to license to the States.

This is not a mandate.  It is permission to do what States have been begging to do.  If it comes with conditions a State doesn't like, the State doesn't have to do anything.  It's been in the works for about 18 years.  I think the States have negotiated conditions they can live with.  I haven't heard one word of objection from any State.
 
2013-05-07 11:55:10 PM

feckingmorons: BarkingUnicorn: The diabolical part is that every State's software  must handle all States' sales taxes. Sellers need only one program, not one for each participating State

I don't see that anywhere in the proposed legislation.

Another very important problem is that states have different rules as to what items sales taxes is imposed upon. Some states tax shoes, some don't. Some tax food, some don't. Each item will have to be categorized as taxable or non-taxable for each state they ship to. If it were all tennis rackets are taxed in all states it would be easy, but some jurisdictions might only tax sporting goods over $75.

The idea is simply unworkable and to suggest that any state could produce software that could do what the law requires is nonsense.


And that's why the States are howling about this bill.  Oh, wait, they're not.
 
2013-05-07 11:58:38 PM

BarkingUnicorn: feckingmorons:

Do you really think that the states are going to like this unfunded mandate. If they could collect the use tax they would already be doing it. Now they are ordered by the federal government to create a software application. Truly what idiot would use what the states created?

That provision in and of itself is burdensome. It is simply better to require the states to provide tax rate data and accept remittances through one central office than expect them to create software. States are not in the software development business so they will farm that task out to some consulting firm (like the one I work for).

Uh-huh.  If you ever get around to reading the bill, search for "certified software provider."  Better still, talk to your employer; I thought you guys already had software that does all of this,  just ready to license to the States.

This is not a mandate.  It is permission to do what States have been begging to do.  If it comes with conditions a State doesn't like, the State doesn't have to do anything.  It's been in the works for about 18 years.  I think the States have negotiated conditions they can live with.  I haven't heard one word of objection from any State.


Yes, the vendors can, and in many cases do already do this. The software the states will have to provide - as far as I can tell- will be simplified in that it calculates the tax on taxable items and will then create reports and filings. It can't do other states, it can't ascertain what is taxable and what is not. It will only say on this order you must collect $1.43 and then at the end of the quarter total up all the taxes collected for our state, file the data with us, and pay us.

Yes, I have read the bill several times, it is a page and a half long, it is easy to read.

My firm does not have any software, we're one level up from that. We, and every other Big4 firm as well as most smaller professional services firms have a SALT practice. These state and local tax practices in these forms bill over 30 Billion dollars annually helping companies comply with their state and local taxes. We don't make the software, but we can advise a business on selection, implementation, and the like. SALT Is quite complex already, this bill if it becomes law will bring that complexity to more than big business, it will bring it to small business as well and be a compliance burden.

I don't want the bill to become law, I pay my use taxes the old fashioned way, by saving my receipts (they are online purchases after all I just have an email folder) and filing quarterly with the state. Would the bill increase revenues at my firm, yes by an estimated $750MM during the implementation period. Is that necessarily a good thing? Depends on who you ask.
 
2013-05-08 12:03:09 AM

BarkingUnicorn: feckingmorons: BarkingUnicorn: The diabolical part is that every State's software  must handle all States' sales taxes. Sellers need only one program, not one for each participating State

I don't see that anywhere in the proposed legislation.

Another very important problem is that states have different rules as to what items sales taxes is imposed upon. Some states tax shoes, some don't. Some tax food, some don't. Each item will have to be categorized as taxable or non-taxable for each state they ship to. If it were all tennis rackets are taxed in all states it would be easy, but some jurisdictions might only tax sporting goods over $75.

The idea is simply unworkable and to suggest that any state could produce software that could do what the law requires is nonsense.

And that's why the States are howling about this bill.  Oh, wait, they're not.


Do you actually expect pushback from the states on a bill that has little chance of becoming law? It was passed by the senate on Monday. Any response by the states (probably through the Federation of Tax Administrators)
 
2013-05-08 12:07:02 AM
Any response by the states (probably through the Federation of Tax Administrators) will be well a well thought out and measured response.

It will not be a knee jerk reaction to some talking point. Some people are indeed deliberative and thoughtful, and tax administrators are certainly in that camp.

/they probably won't hit submit before they are finished either.
 
2013-05-08 12:29:25 AM

feckingmorons: Any response by the states (probably through the Federation of Tax Administrators) will be well a well thought out and measured response.

It will not be a knee jerk reaction to some talking point. Some people are indeed deliberative and thoughtful, and tax administrators are certainly in that camp.

/they probably won't hit submit before they are finished either.


List of 298 supporters of the bill:    http://www.marketplacefairness.org/support/

Among them:

National Conference of State Legislatures
National Governors Association
National League of Cities
The U.S. Conference of Mayors
Government Finance Officers Association

If your "tax administrators" have any objections, I think they're going to keep their mouths shut and just do their jobs.
 
fdr
2013-05-08 12:59:36 AM
It isn't simply that the tax for the state is, say, 6%. That would be fairly easy. But states put in exemptions for different items, examples, medicines, food, children's clothing. The merchant has to know the exemptions in the states it sells in which could be close to all 50. Plus the city, county, and water district rates for the customer. And then write and mail as many as 47 checks by different due dates. Before any sales tax return is filed the merchant has to register with the state.

I'm not taking a yea or nay position on the taxation of Internet sales but criticize the proposed collection process. A more efficient way would be one rate, say, 6%, for all states, no exemptions, one tax return (federal), and one check payable to federal government. The Feds would write checks to the individual states. The states could opt out. There's no chance that this will become law because of Republicans.
 
2013-05-08 01:02:05 AM
Oh, look, here's a certified software provider that does everything the bill requires of online retailers and is already integrated with all of these shopping carts.  IDK if sellers can afford it, though.

"TaxCloud is completely free for retailers. When TaxCloud transfers sales tax funds from a retailer to a state, the state pays us a commission."
 
2013-05-08 04:13:27 AM

DON.MAC: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I don't get why people are upset about paying sales taxes on the internet.  We have to pay a sales tax when we buy something in a "brick and mortar" store, how is paying a sales tax when buying something on the internet any different?

On a related note, I'd like to see a law requiring that prices must be displayed with the tax included.

Why don't you check out the tax rates of places that do that and get back to us?  Here is a hint, they tend to go from 10% to 12.5% to 15% to 17% to 19% to 21% and attempt 22%.   Having the tax put after the price keeps the politicians from running the rate up whenever they feel like it as it causes immediate outrage.


So would a display showing price+tax%=total work to help folks know a total price while also serving the purpose of "keeps the politicians from running the rate up whenever they feel like it"?
 
2013-05-08 05:37:12 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Oh, look, here's a certified software provider that does everything the bill requires of online retailers and is already integrated with all of these shopping carts.  IDK if sellers can afford it, though.

"TaxCloud is completely free for retailers. When TaxCloud transfers sales tax funds from a retailer to a state, the state pays us a commission."


That's great, but do you do FREE tax e-file software for businesses too? Remember, a lot of small businesses would pay more to get the IRS taxes done as well (sales tax subtracts from their revenue).

Other things that don't have sales tax: Catalog-only companies, "As Seen on TV" products...
 
2013-05-08 05:37:46 AM

msbav8r: $10 million for a remake of "Sesame Street" for Pakistan.


That's a great idea. Man, you need to live a little..
 
2013-05-08 05:57:05 AM

People_are_Idiots: BarkingUnicorn: Oh, look, here's a certified software provider that does everything the bill requires of online retailers and is already integrated with all of these shopping carts.  IDK if sellers can afford it, though.

"TaxCloud is completely free for retailers. When TaxCloud transfers sales tax funds from a retailer to a state, the state pays us a commission."

That's great, but do you do FREE tax e-file software for businesses too? Remember, a lot of small businesses would pay more to get the IRS taxes done as well (sales tax subtracts from their revenue).

Other things that don't have sales tax: Catalog-only companies, "As Seen on TV" products...


The bill is not limited to sellers who sell over the Internet.  It applies to all remote sellers.  Definitions:

(4) PERSON- The term `person' means an individual, trust, estate, fiduciary, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and a State or local government.

(5) REMOTE SALE- The term `remote sale' means a sale into a State in which the seller would not legally be required to pay, collect, or remit State or local sales and use taxes unless provided by this Act.

(6) REMOTE SELLER- The term `remote seller' means a person that makes remote sales in the State.
 
Displayed 23 of 573 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report