quote:

I also asked "Does anybody actually ever declare those taxes owed?" and the woman replied "You'd be surprised."

There's a difference between tax avoidance (using legal strategies to reduce what you owe) vs tax evasion (illegally not paying what you owe).

Use tax laws predate the internet. Before my taxes go up to cover any of these loses I suggest places like Amazon get forced to turn over customer lists and that those customers get audited for what they owe and illegally did not pay.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
... I suggest places like Amazon get forced to turn over customer lists and that those customers get audited for what they owe and illegally did not pay.

Yeah, right. And you think a real attempt at gun confiscation would raise holy hell? I'd like to see a state just try that

Y'know, I really, really appreciate your contributions to the forum--not to mention the direct help you've given me, but this almost religious zeal with which you attack Internet buying is tiresome--even to me, and I go out of my way to buy locally, myself.

quote:

I'd like to see a state just try that

So would I. Gun confiscation is in no way related to tax evasion. Possessing firearms is a Constitutional right and legal. Not paying your taxes is illegal.

Why is it such a far fetched idea to believe that the government should actually investigate criminal activity? Or should we be like the left and pick and choose which crimes we are interested in pursuing?

I'm sorry supporting local economies upset you so much. Personally, I enjoy my streets, police departments, snow plowing, public parks, and other things that tax dollars support. I'm glad to see local employees earning money and spending it with local businesses so that they can employ people who repeat that cycle.

I believe tax cheats like Sharpton should pay what they owe, and I believe that internet shoppers who illegally do not file use tax should pay what they owe. I pay what I owe. Why should I pay more to cover those who don't?

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

I'd like to see a state just try that

So would I.

Well, then, I suggest you launch a ballot initiative in Missouri to force your state government to do just that.

Please keep us appraised of its progress.

If you don't complain about taxes you must be a Democrat.
I hate taxes of all kinds.
Why?
Because most of it is wasted or directed corruptly to those who do not deserve it and worse.
So yeah, I will not stop bitching.

Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions.

~Judge Learned Hand

https://www.governing.com/arch...court-arguments.html

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley came to the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, backed by the attorneys general in 42 other states, on a mission to overturn a 26-year-old decision that prevents states from collecting taxes on online sales.

But the court's nine justices quickly made clear that it would not be an easy sell.

Jackley had barely begun explaining that states were losing massive amounts of money and small businesses were being harmed by the 1992 case Quill Corp. v. North Dakota before Justice Sonia Sotomayor interrupted.

“I'm concerned about the many unanswered questions that overturning precedents will create a massive amount of lawsuits about,” she said.

The Quill decision dealt with taxes collected by mail-order catalog companies before the internet became a feature of American life. The 2016 South Dakota law challenges that ruling by allowing the state to collect a sales tax on internet purchases from remote retailers who have a so-called economic presence in the state, rather than the physical presence required by Quill.

Most states already require purchasers in their state to pay the equivalent of a sales tax, but, in practical terms, most buyers never do. South Dakota and other states want the ability to have the online retailer collect the sales tax instead.

The justices spent much of the hour-long arguments focusing on the practical fallout for suddenly allowing states to impose online sales taxes. In particular, they worried that the new tax scheme would harm small businesses that sell goods on the internet.

They also raised concerns about whether states other than South Dakota would try to retroactively charge online retailers for the sales tax they didn’t impose in the past. Jackley said that 38 other states (of the 45 with sales taxes) have already asserted that they wouldn’t apply the taxes retroactively.

And several justices wondered whether Congress would be better equipped to deal with the issue, rather than the high court, because the federal lawmakers could better craft a nationwide scheme that would address many of the judges’ lingering concerns.

It is rare -- but not unheard of -- for reviewing courts to reverse their prior decisions. The current challenge to the 1992 Quill decision came about, in large part, because of the high court’s own actions.

Three years ago, the high court considered a challenge to a Colorado law that makes retailers report -- but not collect -- sales tax owed by its residents. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurrence that invited a challenge to Quill. When the high court decided Quill, he noted, mail-order sales in the country amounted to $180 billion. By 2008, e-commerce sales reached $3.16 trillion.

“Given these changes in technology and consumer sophistication, it is unwise to delay any longer a reconsideration of the court’s holding in Quill. A case questionable even when decided, Quill now harms states to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated earlier,” he wrote.

Less than a year after Kennedy’s comments, South Dakota lawmakers responded by passing a law that they knew would invite an attack from online retailers. South Dakota was far from alone in provoking such an attack, though. Over the past two years, nearly two dozen states have moved to pass bills or change regulations in ways that deliberately invite lawsuits from internet retailers.

By some estimates, states are collectively missing out on more than $23 billion annually in potential online sales tax. A recent study from the Government Accounting Office pegged the annual revenue potential at somewhere between $8.4 billion and $13.5 billion.

The discrepancy is likely because there have been increasing cases where state and local governments are collecting a tax from a remote seller. Notably, Amazon, the largest internet retailer, now has deals in roughly 39 states to remit a sales tax for purchases made through the site.

States have grown bolder, in part, because their efforts to get Congress to act have gone nowhere for more than a decade. The closest they came to a national system for sales tax collection came in 2013 when the U.S. Senate passed the Marketplace Fairness Act. But the bill died in the House, and Congress has not advanced similar legislation since.

The Quill decision would let Congress set a national standard because it is based on the legal theory that states cannot impose greater trade restrictions on products from other states than they do on their own goods. The theory is based on the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, which was included so states didn’t start mini-trade wars with each other, as they had when the country was governed by the Articles of Confederation.

So one of the biggest questions in the South Dakota case is whether the requirements for out-of-state vendors to collect sales tax is really creating an uneven playing field for in-state and out-of-state companies.

“Why isn't it -- far from discriminating -- equalizing sellers?” asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “Anyone who wants to sell in-state, whether an in-state shop [or] an out-of-state shop, everybody is treated to the same tax collection obligation. All who exploit an in-state market are subject to the in-state tax. Why isn’t that equalizing rather than discriminating?”

Jackley pressed that argument.

“Small businesses are not being treated fairly. We’re not asking remote sellers to do anything that we’re not already asking our small businesses to do in our state. And that is simply to collect and remit a tax,” he said.

But George Isaacson, a lawyer representing Wayfair, one of the companies challenging the South Dakota law, said that remitting sales taxes to all of the country’s jurisdictions would be overly burdensome on out-of-state retailers. The number of jurisdictions that imposed sales taxes has grown from 2,300 when the high court first restricted sales tax collections in 1967, to 6,000 by 1992, to more than 12,000 jurisdictions today.

“Borders count,” he said. “States exercise their sovereignty based upon borders, territorial limits. It’s a key part of horizontal federalism in this country. So, if there's going to be some standard that determines when is a company subject to the tax jurisdiction of a state, using the territorial limits of that state make sense.”

A key factor in the decision is where the justices come down on the question of whether it's better or not to allow Congress to address the question. Ginsburg suggested the court should fix the problem itself. “Why are we asking Congress to overturn our obsolete precedent?”

Kagan, on the other hand, said the solution would be best solved at the U.S. Capitol across the street.

“From this court's perspective, the choice is just binary,” she explained. “You either have the Quill rule or you don't. But Congress is capable of crafting compromises and trying to figure out how to balance the wide range of interests involved here.”

Justice Samuel Alito said giving states a victory in court could prevent the sides from reaching a more comprehensive compromise in Congress.

"As things stand now, it seems that both the states and internet retailers have an incentive to ask for a congressional solution to this problem,” he said. Online retailers would still have to contend with onerous state requirements, like Colorado’s reporting law, while states are trying to collect more of the taxes they’re owed. “There are incentives on both sides. But if Quill is overruled, what incentives do the states have to ask for any kind of congressional legislation?”

The tough questioning isn’t necessarily a bad omen for South Dakota’s chances. Justices often use oral arguments to explore the consequences of the decisions they ultimately make. And it was clear that at least some of the justices were still wrestling with the case.

“When I read your briefs, I thought absolutely right,” Justice Stephen Breyer said. “And then I read through the other briefs, and I thought absolutely right. And you cannot both be absolutely right.”

===============================================

https://www.csglaw.com/supreme...on-online-purchases-

Supreme Court Decides Internet Sales Tax Case, Allowing States to Charge Sales Taxes on Online Purchases

On June 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision, South Dakota v. Wayfair, U.S., No. 17-494, granting states greater power to require out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax on online sales to in-state residents. At issue was the Court’s own 26-year-old precedent, Quill v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), which established the physical presence test for sales and use tax nexus. Modern e-commerce “does not align” with the physical presence required in Quill, Justice Kennedy wrote. The decision is the most important state tax case in more than two decades.

Decided by a 5-4 vote, the Wayfair decision upholds South Dakota’s digital sales tax statute, enacted in March 2016, which requires out-of-state remote sellers with 200 or more sales transactions or annual in-state sales in excess of $100,000 to collect and remit sales tax from such sales to South Dakota even if such sellers had no employees or real estate in the state. The South Dakota law first worked its way to the state circuit court and then to the South Dakota Supreme Court when South Dakota sought to enforce the law against three large online retailers, Wayfair Inc., Overstock.com. Inc., and Newegg Inc. The South Dakota Supreme Court, relying on Quill, ruled for the sellers. South Dakota filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court granted on January 12, 2018, leading many tax experts to believe that Quill would be overturned.

For 26 years, Quill set the standard for how states tax online purchases, prohibiting states from imposing sales tax collection obligations on businesses if the businesses lacked an in-state physical presence. Overruling Quill, Justice Kennedy wrote: “The Supreme Court is saying that technology has changed so dramatically that Quill and National Bellas Hess are basically anachronisms.” National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753 (1967) is a 1962 case prohibiting a state from requiring a seller to collect use tax on sales by mail to customers in the state. Justice Kennedy further articulated that the physical presence rule of Quill is “unsound and incorrect” and that the court’s decisions in Quill and National Bellas Hess are thus now overruled.

A significant part of the Court’s discussion focused on the Commerce Clause, and more specifically, the doctrine of the “dormant” Commerce Clause, which generally stands for the idea that the federal government is the only governing body that can regulate interstate commerce and that the Constitution empowers courts to invalidate state laws that have a negative effect across state boundaries. In a rather detailed analysis, the Supreme Court concluded that the South Dakota statute is not an undue burden on interstate commerce:

“[S]outh Dakota’s tax system includes several features that appear designed to prevent discrimination against or undue burdens upon interstate commerce. First, the Act applies a safe harbor to those who transact only limited business in South Dakota. Second, the Act ensures that no obligation to remit the sales tax may be applied retroactively (. . .). Third, South Dakota is one of more than 20 States that have adopted the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. This system standardizes taxes to reduce administrative and compliance costs: It requires a single, state-level tax administration, uniform definitions of products and services, simplified tax rate structures, and other uniform rules. It also provides sellers access to sales tax administration software paid for by the State. Sellers who choose to use such software are immune from audit liability (. . .).”

The court also makes it clear, however, that more complex or overreaching laws might impose such a burden and thus must, and will be, scrutinized closely.

Joining with Kennedy were Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, dissented from the majority, and argued that the issue of remote taxation should be decided by Congress: “I would let Congress decide whether to depart from the physical presence rule that has governed this area for half a century.” Critically, however, even the dissenters agreed that the in-state physical presence test was flawed on its own terms and that Quill was wrongly decided.

The Wayfair decision will undoubtedly have a monumental effect on commerce across the country, forcing internet retailers and third party sellers using platforms like Amazon.com, Ebay.com and others to collect and remit taxes to states in which they make sales above certain thresholds, and putting smaller local state businesses in a more competitive position with the online retail giants. The ruling is also potentially a huge win for states that have been losing out on billions of revenue dollars annually under the two decades-old Supreme Court decisions that limited online sales tax collection. However, how the states will implement the holding of Wayfair is unclear. While there is little doubt that all states that administer a sales tax will follow South Dakota, it is not clear whether they will do so by copying South Dakota’s law or revisiting internet sales laws they already have in effect to bring them as close to the South Dakota model as possible. On a practical level, the decision may lead to disparate tax policies, at least until Congress, and perhaps the states, work to enact uniformity in applying the Supreme Court’s holding. In addition, the Wayfair decision sets the stage for states to argue nexus on out-of-state retailers for income tax purposes. Whether the decision will negatively impact online shopping remains to be seen.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:
Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible.

True, but a1abdj is correct in that there's a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. He is correct in asserting that failing to pay taxes for which one is legally obligated is a crime--whether you agree with the tax or not.

Poor analogy, but it's like having a choice between two routes that will take you to the same destination--one having a speed limit higher than the other. It is of course no crime to take advantage of the faster route. (Slow route avoidance.) It is a crime to break the speed limit on the slower route in order to make the same time. (Speed limit evasion.)

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:
taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions.

Nearly (?) all laws result in somebody being required to comply involuntarily.

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
The Wayfair decision will undoubtedly have a monumental effect on commerce across the country, ... putting smaller local state businesses in a more competitive position with the online retail giants.

Not really. I buy on-line not because I want to. Not for savings. But when local retailers simply do not carry what I wish to buy.

My most recent purchase being an example: I wanted another Airscape coffee canister. Not a single local retailer carries them at all, despite the fact it's widely-regarded as being the best coffee storage container available, bar none.

So Amazon, from whom I really do not care to purchase, got my business.

Again.

At least in my case, if a pistol cost more than $370 it was cheaper to pay postage and the transfer fee than sales tax.

We're not necessarily bitching about the tax, just that there is never enough revenue for government desires- there never will be. Tax this, tax that, new tax this, new tax that- It never ends and that is the bitch.

Good grief. The average human realizes that paying taxes is basically like giving money away...the government will waste the funds or earmark them for some political nonsense that only leftist support.

My real problem is not the sales tax, but the mechanism for collection. There are so many taxing jurisdictions in the U.S. Every state, city, county, or township could have a different tax rate and place of remittance. Is it feasible to expect every retailer, worldwide, to properly collect for each one?

At what point will some retailers just say "fine, no sales to the U.S.", the same way some gun retailers will boycott CA? I don't want the burden of complying with this sales tax requirement to cause, say, a little motorcycle tuning shop in the Netherlands that I like, to implement "No U.S. shipments!"

If we're going to do this, we need some type of clearinghouse, in the same way that IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement) is paid by trucking companies. You pay the fuel tax to every state, but you write a single check (or get a refund) to/from your base jurisdiction, who then clears the accounts with all participating U.S. States, Canada, and Mexico.

If the states would do this, I think you'd have a lot more people on board. You send one check to the state of Utah, for example, with an aggregate list of sales to each zip code, and the state doles out the taxes to each city and county.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

Use tax laws predate the internet. Before my taxes go up to cover any of these loses I suggest places like Amazon get forced to turn over customer lists and that those customers get audited for what they owe and illegally did not pay.

Frank, whether somebody in Delaware or Pennsylvania or California or any of the other 47 states pays "use tax" in their jurisdiction has not the first damn thing to do with your state and local tax burden in Missouri. No effect whatsoever. You know this.

The honest thing would be to come out and say, straight-up, "I hate online sellers undercutting my prices in this market." You've said as much before. Re-wrapping it in "It's about EVERYONE PAYING THEIR FAIR SHAAAAAAAAARE!" is disingenuous.

quote:

Frank, whether somebody in Delaware or Pennsylvania or California or any of the other 47 states pays "use tax" in their jurisdiction has not the first damn thing to do with your state and local tax burden in Missouri. No effect whatsoever. You know this.

Seeing I live in Missouri, and Missouri collects sales taxes which funds local government, it effects me when other Missourians do not pay the taxes they are owed. But you're right. I don't really care how Pennsylvania, California, or 47 other states handle it. It effects me here, so I care about it here. Perhaps you should care about it where you're from. It impacts us all.

quote:

The honest thing would be to come out and say, straight-up, "I hate online sellers undercutting my prices in this market."

That wouldn't be honest at all because online sellers do not undercut my prices. Ready to have your mind blown? I can sell my products, including sales tax which I collect and remit per the laws of my state, for the same or less as those on the internet can.

However, there's a specific reason I can do this. I do not offer a brick and mortar operation open to the public for retails sales. Customers can get internet pricing, but they also get (mostly) internet service.

The same can not be said for other businesses. It's not "undercutting" prices, it's "unfair advantage". Difficult for some to compete with online businesses which do not have any of the same overhead. Then again, many people who have opinions on this topic have no idea what it cost to operate a business.

quote:

Re-wrapping it in "It's about EVERYONE PAYING THEIR FAIR SHAAAAAAAAARE!" is disingenuous.

That's absolutely not what this is. This is a legal obligation. Not paying it is illegal. I don't want people to "pay their fair share", I want people to "pay what they legally owe". I believe that our laws should apply to everybody equally.

Seems that those that squeal the most about this are likely the ones eligible for massive penalties should they be subject to an actual audit. And I'm not really concerned about those who spend money online here and there. There are people who spends tens of thousands of dollars online each year without paying these taxes. This costs your local communities millions of dollars in lost revenue that they are legally owed, and better start collecting before they ever come to me with their hands out.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
...be said for other businesses. It's not "undercutting" prices, it's "unfair advantage". Difficult for some to compete with online businesses which do not have any of the same overhead. Then again, many people who have opinions on this topic have no idea what it cost to operate a business.

This raises another point. Online businesses place a much lower burden on the local government. There aren’t need for police to protect the retail location or respond to shoplifters. No need for a fire department to protect a warehouse or storefront. You could make an argument that roads are used, but those are generally funded through fuel taxes.

In this respect, the local businesses will be the freeloaders, if the online retailers have to pay the same rate as a domiciled one.

quote:

In this respect, the local businesses will be the freeloaders, if the online retailers have to pay the same rate as a domiciled one.

Businesses do pay sales and use taxes, but in the overall scheme of things it's not the businesses paying the rate for these services. At least not via sales taxes. It's the customers who pay the taxes based on where they live.

Covid threw a second knock out punch, but we have localities around here which are tens of millions of dollars short due to decreases in sales tax revenue. This has resulted in furloughs and pay cuts for police/fire/ems and other municipal positions.

My issue is that the state of Utah let's Amazon pocket 18% of the "sales tax" they collect (They let every online retailer pocket some portion of collected sales tax).

Additionally, I continuously get charged more sales tax than I should be because the city I live in shares zip codes with a blue city that has a much higher locality sales tax. I assume those collected taxes are sent to that shithole of a city as well (which just announced they will be spending taxpayer money to pay for "reassignment surgeries." ...so yeah, I'm going to keep bitching.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
It's not "undercutting" prices, it's "unfair advantage". Difficult for some to compete with online businesses which do not have any of the same overhead. Then again, many people who have opinions on this topic have no idea what it cost to operate a business.

You act as if online retailers don't have overhead. Web hosting sites aren't free. The products they sell are stored at one point or another. Maybe in ones home or in a warehouse or some other place, but that costs money as well. Electricity isn't free, so there's that too. It's just a matter of perspective really but there is always a cost to doing business. Your gripe is simply that local businesses don't have the lower overhead and haven't updated their business strategies.

I'll throw this out for you to chew on for a bit: most of "your" local businesses are also doing online sales and aren't passing those tax dollars on to your city or state. Maybe they aren't collecting taxes at all for those online sales but I'll guarantee that they're utilizing local resources in handling those sales (roads, fire protection, police, yadda, yadda). They're also paying their employees to work those online sales. Think about how many people actually have a job just because their employer offers goods or services online. Some places just wouldn't support having a full time employee or two just sitting around, so why not have them handling orders.

Overall, I'd say it's a wash the way this is handled now.

Final bit is about compliance: I'd imagine that if you got your way, you'd sick some bean counters on those not paying what is "legally" owed. If that is the case, who is gonna pay them? How much will you pay them? How many would there be? Would they be able to take in more than what is paid out for all of those .gov employees?

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
I shouldn't have to pay any sales tax on used goods from anyone. AZ doesn't even charge sales tax on private party vehicle sales. Why should they be able to collect sales tax on a 30 yr old guitar I buy on eBay? I will try to avoid paying any dime of gov't. extortion I can. When they stop wasting my money and treat everyone equally, then we can talk.

I was going to say something similar to this. I can see real online retailers like amazon or buying online from a real store.

What irks the snot out of me is ebay charging sales tax.... on USED item from PRIVATE sellers. Even more annoying is they charge tax on the total price INCLUDING shipping.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

When those who tax see decreased revenue they will seek to make it up with new and/or improved taxes.

That is, without question, THE funniest fucking thing I read all weekend !