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.

(Washington Post)   The Supreme Court just rejected an appeal on online sales taxes, which means your freeloading days are over, cheapskate   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 191
    More: Obvious, Supreme Court, sales taxes, online retailers, tax collections, New York Court of Appeals  
•       •       •

6791 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Dec 2013 at 3:18 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-02 12:21:52 PM
Supreme Court: This is the official word on what the Constitution says.
Rich People: Wah. The Constitution is limiting the amount of money we can take from poorer people.
Local Court: Gosh, sorry rich people. We'll change the Constitution.
Supreme Court: We ain't touchin' that one with a ten foot pole.

Yay for the rich people who usurped the Supreme Court.
 
2013-12-02 12:24:01 PM
rich people are the ones who charge sales tax?
 
2013-12-02 12:30:26 PM
rich people own all of the big box stores that are losing business because of the online retailers. yeah yeah, the state is also losing money, but i'd rather whinge about rich people.
 
2013-12-02 12:31:36 PM
I don't live in a state that has sales tax. Most of my purchases for other people go to a state that has no sales tax.
 
2013-12-02 12:55:11 PM

the801: rich people own all of the big box stores that are losing business because of the online retailers. yeah yeah, the state is also losing money, but i'd rather whinge about rich people.


It's probably a safe bet that Jeff Bezos has more money that the owners of most "big-box" stores.  He could probably buy most big-box stores outright.
 
2013-12-02 12:56:49 PM
Good. Sales tax is sales tax, it should be collected. Ordering over the internet is no different than ordering by mail.
 
2013-12-02 01:25:10 PM

obenchainr: the801: rich people own all of the big box stores that are losing business because of the online retailers. yeah yeah, the state is also losing money, but i'd rather whinge about rich people.

It's probably a safe bet that Jeff Bezos has more money that the owners of most "big-box" stores.  He could probably buy most big-box stores outright.


True, but I'd put money on Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and others doing some significant lobbying.
 
2013-12-02 01:30:23 PM
It's time the online world paid what is owed.
 
2013-12-02 01:55:42 PM

the801: Supreme Court: This is the official word on what the Constitution says.
Rich People: Wah. The Constitution is limiting the amount of money we can take from poorer people.
Local Court: Gosh, sorry rich people. We'll change the Constitution.
Supreme Court: We ain't touchin' that one with a ten foot pole.

Yay for the rich people who usurped the Supreme Court.


What? You could not possibly be more wrong.

New York: We're changing the law so that we cancollect more taxes.

Rich People: Please change this law, we want people to think our prices are lower online!
Local Court: Sorry Rich People, New York can force you to collect sales taxes for them.
Supreme Court: Yep, sounds about right.
 
2013-12-02 02:08:58 PM

Rincewind53: New York: We're changing the law so that we cancollect more taxes.


which is a good thing, but won't be popular among the "No new taxes!" flavor of constituents; I just assume that lobbyists from the big boxes helped move things along because, more importantly, collecting taxes on out-of-state purchases would have started 20 years ago if it wasn't unconstitutional, yet the Supreme Court hasn't actually handed down a ruling redefining the Constitutionality of that, unless refusing to hear a case automatically invalidates the old ruling. i dunno, IANAL, i'm just talking out my butt : )
 
2013-12-02 02:19:03 PM

the801: Rincewind53: New York: We're changing the law so that we cancollect more taxes.

which is a good thing, but won't be popular among the "No new taxes!" flavor of constituents; I just assume that lobbyists from the big boxes helped move things along because, more importantly, collecting taxes on out-of-state purchases would have started 20 years ago if it wasn't unconstitutional, yet the Supreme Court hasn't actually handed down a ruling redefining the Constitutionality of that, unless refusing to hear a case automatically invalidates the old ruling. i dunno, IANAL, i'm just talking out my butt : )


It's a bit more complicated than that, and I'd suggest you just check out this very good summary

Basically, the Supreme Court's precedent didn't  explicitly say that you can't impose sales taxes on out-of-state purchases, and left open a bit of a loophole, where states have (successfully) argued that if a business has a large enough "nexus" with the state (that is, if they are connected in a large enough way to the state), then the state can impose a requirement on them to collect sales tax from citizens of that state. In New York's case, they decided that the nexus essentially occurs when retailers are soliciting New York customers or simply do a lot of business in New York. Thus, any business that falls under any of the following three conditions must collect sales taxes on New York residents:
1. has an agreement with one or more New York residents to refer potential customers to the seller via a website link or otherwise
2. compensates the New York resident or residents for directing potential buyers to the seller, and
3. the seller's "cumulative gross receipts" from such directed sales to New York customers exceeds $10,000 during the preceding 12 months.


The whole point is somewhat moot, I think, because earlier this year Congress explicitly rewrote the laws (overturning the Supreme Court in the process) and giving states the power to require any online retailer with gross sales > $1,000,000 to impose sales taxes on each state's residents.
 
2013-12-02 02:20:39 PM
That said,  the801, you are completely right that this law was the result of lobbying from brick and mortar stores worried that they were being undercut by Amazon.
 
2013-12-02 02:34:30 PM
Technically you are supposed to report what you buy online at income tax time and pay it then. So basically it makes a bunch of scofflaws more honest.
 
2013-12-02 02:49:47 PM
Relax folks, it is plain to see that the801 doesn't know what he/she is talking about.  Just another troll with an ax to grind, even though it is baseless and without merit.
 
2013-12-02 03:08:39 PM

Rincewind53: That said,  the801, you are completely right that this law was the result of lobbying from brick and mortar stores worried that they were being undercut by Amazon.


Brink and mortar stores doesn't automatically equal rich people. There are still more then enough Ma and Pa stores out there to count this as a win for the middle class.
 
2013-12-02 03:10:59 PM

nmrsnr: Good. Sales tax is sales tax, it should be collected. Ordering over the internet is no different than ordering by mail.


FYI: Merchants don't have to collect sales tax on mail order purchases.  The internet DOES work just like mail order.  Same damned thing.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-12-02 03:18:26 PM
I feel like I'm the only otherwise anti-tax person who doesn't have a problem with the concept of use tax. I also don't have a problem with forcing large online sellers to collect whatever sales taxes can be assessed simply, without worrying about whether the .11% water district tax on rubber boots taller than 9 inches is in effect on weekdays that also happen to be county holidays.
 
2013-12-02 03:20:31 PM

Pocket Ninja: rich people are the ones who charge sales tax?


Alternative headline: "Conservative dominated Supreme Court green lights huge nationwide tax increase."
 
2013-12-02 03:22:05 PM

nmrsnr: Good. Sales tax is sales tax, it should be collected. Ordering over the internet is no different than ordering by mail.


How do you propose someone in a state that doesn't collect sales tax goes about supporting that, then?
 
2013-12-02 03:24:22 PM

nmrsnr: Good. Sales tax is sales tax, it should be collected. Ordering over the internet is no different than ordering by mail.


That is correct.

Mail order is not charged sales tax if the company has no presence in your state, unless something changed since that Sears-Roebuck Supreme Court decision that made it law of the land.
 
2013-12-02 03:26:19 PM
I agree with what a lot of people are saying, I see how collecting them could have been a burden before but now I bet anyone that has some sort of online purchasing component just as easily can hook into a sales tax component.

Most people go through a third party online to handle the money, they can easily handle sales tax.
 
2013-12-02 03:26:55 PM

Rincewind53: the801: Rincewind53: New York: We're changing the law so that we cancollect more taxes.

which is a good thing, but won't be popular among the "No new taxes!" flavor of constituents; I just assume that lobbyists from the big boxes helped move things along because, more importantly, collecting taxes on out-of-state purchases would have started 20 years ago if it wasn't unconstitutional, yet the Supreme Court hasn't actually handed down a ruling redefining the Constitutionality of that, unless refusing to hear a case automatically invalidates the old ruling. i dunno, IANAL, i'm just talking out my butt : )

It's a bit more complicated than that, and I'd suggest you just check out this very good summary

Basically, the Supreme Court's precedent didn't  explicitly say that you can't impose sales taxes on out-of-state purchases, and left open a bit of a loophole, where states have (successfully) argued that if a business has a large enough "nexus" with the state (that is, if they are connected in a large enough way to the state), then the state can impose a requirement on them to collect sales tax from citizens of that state. In New York's case, they decided that the nexus essentially occurs when retailers are soliciting New York customers or simply do a lot of business in New York. Thus, any business that falls under any of the following three conditions must collect sales taxes on New York residents:
1. has an agreement with one or more New York residents to refer potential customers to the seller via a website link or otherwise
2. compensates the New York resident or residents for directing potential buyers to the seller, and
3. the seller's "cumulative gross receipts" from such directed sales to New York customers exceeds $10,000 during the preceding 12 months.

The whole point is somewhat moot, I think, because earlier this year Congress explicitly rewrote the laws (overturning the Supreme Court in the process) and giving states the power to require any online retai ...


which seems to be a fair compromise. it keeps the small businesses from having to worry about collecting sales tax and levels the field on the big boys
 
2013-12-02 03:27:03 PM
Kind of ironic someone is boasting about online sales taxes, calling us cheapskate, on a website.
 
2013-12-02 03:27:21 PM
Pay your freakin' taxes, people. They're the dues we pay for a society. Sales taxes help you locally. It's only a few percent, and if you think it's too high, call your local representative and try to get your state to change its law.
 
2013-12-02 03:27:38 PM
I thought I'd heard that was just for NY. Can't RTFA now, but does this also apply to other states?
 
2013-12-02 03:28:03 PM

nmrsnr: Good. Sales tax is sales tax, it should be collected. Ordering over the internet is no different than ordering by mail.


That.
 
2013-12-02 03:28:21 PM
Good luck with the states and cities and other levels of government getting the taxes away from businesses who collect them. Oh and reporting taxes to city and state probably isn't as meticulous as it is for federal taxes. Just sayin...
 
2013-12-02 03:28:25 PM
New day!
New tax!

so surprised, I could just pee
 
2013-12-02 03:28:41 PM

jbuist: FYI: Merchants don't have to collect sales tax on mail order purchases. The internet DOES work just like mail order. Same damned thing.


There's no reason to think that will continue.
 
2013-12-02 03:28:50 PM

the801: Supreme Court: This is the official word on what the Constitution says.
Rich People: Wah. The Constitution is limiting the amount of money we can take from poorer people.
Local Court: Gosh, sorry rich people. We'll change the Constitution.
Supreme Court: We ain't touchin' that one with a ten foot pole.

Yay for the rich people who usurped the Supreme Court.


That's what you took away from all this? You're an idiot.
 
2013-12-02 03:29:34 PM

jbuist: nmrsnr: Good. Sales tax is sales tax, it should be collected. Ordering over the internet is no different than ordering by mail.

FYI: Merchants don't have to collect sales tax on mail order purchases.  The internet DOES work just like mail order.  Same damned thing.


THIS. nmrsnr obviously doesn't know thing one about the catalog business.
 
2013-12-02 03:30:04 PM
...so, if Amazon has no presence in New York and ignores New York's law (and the subsequent fines the state would no doubt impose), how would that end?  There would be no assets to seize without leaving the jurisdiction, and New York can't exactly firewall Amazon.
 
2013-12-02 03:30:53 PM
Fine by me, sales tax should apply to all.  Seems like more and more online retailers already have been collecting it.
 
2013-12-02 03:31:05 PM

nmrsnr: Good. Sales tax is sales tax, it should be collected. Ordering over the internet is no different than ordering by mail.


Internet and mail order work the same.

If a company has a presence in a state, they will collect sales tax on shipments to that state.

For example, if Amazon ships to California, they collect California sales tax.

If they ship to Ohio, there is no sales tax.
 
2013-12-02 03:31:27 PM

jbuist: FYI: Merchants don't have to collect sales tax on mail order purchases. The internet DOES work just like mail order. Same damned thing.


Huh, I was almost certain they did, that's why those mail order forms have a sales tax line on them. I guess that's just for in state shipping.

At any rate, it's a lot easier to have the companies do it than to force the buyer to send a check to the state every time they buy something, so I still support it.
 
2013-12-02 03:31:28 PM
YEA! Now on-line sites are going to have to deal with a varying sales tax from 57 States....
 
2013-12-02 03:31:54 PM
Cue the "online purchasing proxy in a non-sales-tax state" industry!
 
2013-12-02 03:32:16 PM

Rincewind53: The whole point is somewhat moot, I think, because earlier this year Congress explicitly rewrote the laws (overturning the Supreme Court in the process) and giving states the power to require any online retailer with gross sales > $1,000,000 to impose sales taxes on each state's residents.


Passed in the Senate. Future uncertain in the House. Read TFA.
 
2013-12-02 03:33:21 PM
Tomorrows headline: Amazon tells New York based affiliates to get lost.
 
2013-12-02 03:34:07 PM

edmo: Pocket Ninja: rich people are the ones who charge sales tax?

Alternative headline: "Conservative dominated Supreme Court green lights huge nationwide tax increase."


How is it a tax increase? You already pay taxes on everything else you buy. Why not on what you buy online?
 
2013-12-02 03:34:41 PM
It won't work.  How can online retailers calculate and collect the sales tax due on every transaction when each locality having its own sales tax structure?  You would need some sort of calculating machine to do it, capable of hundreds of calculations a second.
 
2013-12-02 03:34:46 PM

HAMMERTOE: Cue the "online purchasing proxy in a non-sales-tax state" industry!


We'd probably see laws to prevent this if they don't cover already.  I can go buy a car in DE and pay no sales tax at point of sale but as soon as I bring it down to VA and register it I'm gonna pay up.
 
2013-12-02 03:35:17 PM
I really thought that this was a subsidy for online growth and presence.

Yeah, that era is over.
 
2013-12-02 03:35:19 PM
I wonder if there'd be any value in a trans-shipment service located in one of the tax-free states?  I.e., if a retailer is obliged to collect sales tax of the destination state, but the destination state charges none, then a shipment that gets passed through a tax-free jurisdiction could be re-shipped to its high-tax destination at a reduced cost.

It wouldn't make much sense for a $20 book, but for a big-ticket item the savings might be worthwhile (9%+ in CA)...
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-12-02 03:36:30 PM
Corvus

Keeping track of sales tax rules is hard. When a city with taxing power annexes land, somebody's tax rate changes. When the department of revenue clarifies the rule on taxation of dual use floor wax / dessert topping, somebody's tax rate changes.

A traditional small store has it easy. Shoes are not taxable, socks are not taxable unless over $50 per pair (for example), and that's all they sell. The rules rarely change. The store only charges its own local sales tax. Once in a while the legislature declares a sales tax holiday, but after the first time the code to handle that is written.

Multiply that by a thousand rules and a thousand jurisdictions and you have Amazon's situation. Most of their products are easy to classify, but they have to be classified, and a few fall into obscure corner cases where you need to ask local counsel for legal advice.

Part of the national sales tax collection bill is a safe harbor provision that says states bear the burden of providing simple rules and the risk of those rules not accurately describing tax law.  They get 90% or more of the revenue for 10% or less of the work.
 
2013-12-02 03:37:00 PM
Most states have a use tax.  If you don't pay sales tax on something (or less sales tax than where you live) you're supposed to pay the difference.

Companies typically pay attention to this.  Joe Resident, not so much.

Nashua NH is 39 miles up Rt 3 from here.
 
2013-12-02 03:37:12 PM

jackmalice: It won't work.  How can online retailers calculate and collect the sales tax due on every transaction when each locality having its own sales tax structure?  You would need some sort of calculating machine to do it, capable of hundreds of calculations a second.


It's not the math that's the problem, it's maintaining a database that correlates every address with every local tax structure and is accurately updated whenever (say) West Bubblefark, Nebraska changes their local sales tax ordinance.
 
2013-12-02 03:37:19 PM

jaytkay: nmrsnr: Good. Sales tax is sales tax, it should be collected. Ordering over the internet is no different than ordering by mail.

Internet and mail order work the same.

If a company has a presence in a state, they will collect sales tax on shipments to that state.

For example, if Amazon ships to California, they collect California sales tax.

If they ship to Ohio, there is no sales tax.


I thought it meant if they have a brick and mortor store in the state. Sears online pretty much has to collect from all states, Apple only collects from states where they have a physical presence (via actual store)
 
2013-12-02 03:37:54 PM
I don't see what this has to do with rich people.  If those rich owners of big box stores were worth a damn, they would have started selling stuff of the internet 15 years ago.  The rich people has zero do to with this, it is 100% the States wanting their share.
 
2013-12-02 03:38:11 PM

jshine: I wonder if there'd be any value in a trans-shipment service located in one of the tax-free states?  I.e., if a retailer is obliged to collect sales tax of the destination state, but the destination state charges none, then a shipment that gets passed through a tax-free jurisdiction could be re-shipped to its high-tax destination at a reduced cost.

It wouldn't make much sense for a $20 book, but for a big-ticket item the savings might be worthwhile (9%+ in CA)...


I think there are a few reshipping services that do just that.

Definitely something I'll look into for big purchases.
 
Displayed 50 of 191 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report