OT Amazon to begin charging state sales tax

[krw]

Zip codes don't follow municipal lines (tax rates). I know it's used, but they're often wrong.

[krw]

Huh? If this is so easy, why do I always get directed to web pages for a city fifty miles from here?

Bullshit.

...and made as complicated as man can.

[krw]

A friend lived in one town but had an address for the city next to it. I lived a couple of blocks closer to the city (same subdivision) but had a town address. The tax rates were substantially different. How does your simple model handle this?

[krw]

No, it's really simpler than that. If they don't see it, it doesn't exist. IOW, legislators are stupid, but you knew that.

[krw]

No one has ever figured out how to do it, so it does seem to be unworkable.

There were "huge relational databases" in the 1980s, kid.

...and that's relevant, how?

I *know* you underestimate the problem, as do most kids.

...and that's free (if it were possible)?

[Percival P. Cassidy]

In MI, one is required to report out-of-state purchases in excess of $1000 (per item). Purchases for lesser amounts may either be itemized if one has the receipts or else assessed automatically on the basis of the taxable income (I *think* that's the basis). But one is supposed to pay only the difference between the sales tax actually paid elsewhere (if any) and the MI tax. So we don't pay MI "use tax" on the items that we bought in IL where the tax rate is 8.xx (varies from county to county).

Perce

[John Larkin]

These states are missing an opportunity to charge double sales tax. What *were* they thinking?

John

[George Herold]

rote:

Yup, I always put down a little something ~$10-20. All internet purchases, but less in recent years since I've just been checking the box on the order form to have the vendor pay my sales tax. (But remember I'm a liberal weenie, I also pay ~$100 a year extra to get all my electricity from the local wind farm.)

George H.

[Notat Home]

Years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for states to collect sales tax on out of state sales. I wonder what has changed?

Sales tax is complicated in that different places (states, counties, cities, etc.) have different rates and different definitions of what can be taxed. I know in Ohio, there is a use tax, identical to the sales tax, that people have to pay themselves when they buy something out of state, but because of complexity and ignorance, I think few people pay it. The states lose a ton of revenue because they can't effectively collect the sales or use tax on out of state purchases. It would certainly be fairer to all to have the same tax for in-state and out of state purchases.

[krw]

I guess you make perfect sense. ...to someone.

[krw]

SCotUS had something to say about that. They also tried taxing retirement income in the state where the income was earned. SCotUS took a dim view on that one, too.

[Michael A. Terrell]

The 'Use tax' was first used for businesses to pay taxes on items they used for their operation, in place of sales tax. I used to collect sales tax, and pay use tax for my electronics business.

[PeterD]

On 11/23/2011 12:11 PM, Notat Home wrote: ifference...

What has changed is your understanding of sales tax, the law, and the ruling by the courts.

[DerbyDad03]

Same in NYS.

When I helped my daughter with her 2010 taxes, TaxAct estimated her "NYS Use Tax" at $8 based on her earned income. (I think that might be the minimum.)

She's a college student with a part time job and she does indeed buy most of her stuff on-line, so we opted to leave the $8 tax on her form.

Soon after we e-filed it, we got a notification that the state had "fixed an error" on her form. They removed the $8 tax and increased her refund by that amount.

Who were we to argue?

[Ed Huntress]

On 11/23/2011 12:11 PM, Notat Home wrote: ifference...

The Supreme Court did NOT rule it unconstitutional for states to collect sales taxes on sales made from out-of-state vendors. What the Court did (Quill v. North Dakota, 1992) was to prevent states from collecting from the

*vendor*. They can still collect from the buyer -- or they can try, which doesn't work very well.

[John Doe]

And WTF is that supposed to mean?

Please grow up at least enough to post coherently.

[Kurt Ullman]

Not always. For instance in some areas the mass transport system is a separate governmental entity that actually crosses municipal borders. Also, how do you decide which of the multiple districts a person resides under these circumstances? You can't rely on addresses since on the ongoing hoohas in this county is that Carmel people have Indy addresses and Fishers people may have a Noblesville address. It isn't as cut and dried as municipal boundaries.

[John Doe]

And everyone in your world is so eager to pay taxes, they do not even have to be told... At least in my state, the state never tells anyone that they are supposed to pay a "usage" tax on out-of-state purchases. I seem to recall someone working for the state telling me that the state has a usage tax but that nobody pays those taxes.

Another reason for not sampling a grape at the supermarket is because others might be putting their grubby hands all over the grapes too.

[Robert Neville]

Absolutely nothing has changed - the forced collection of sales tax by one state against a purchase in another state is still unconstitutional. Quiill vs. ND is still the legal authority and there have been no rulings by any courts that have reversed this.

What has changed is that states are atttempting to get around the SCOTUS ruling by stretching the definition of nexus beyond the breaking point, claiming that "affiliates" and separate legal entities owned by the parent in that state are sufficient to create a nexus.

In the case of affiliates, Amazon and others have told the states to pound sand and stopped paying affiliates in those states. In the case of distribution centers and separate legal entities (read: software development centers), Amazon has chosen to negotiate collection terms with those states. Fine as far as it goes.

The legislation that someone referenced earlier in this thread is an attempt to create a new national sales tax that would be applied to transactions that are not currently taxed at by states. And if you think it would stay that way, I have a bridge I'd like to show you.

[langwadt]

it seem ok enough that amazon have the unfair advantage, of paying no saletax, over local shops just because they sell stuff over the internet and not over the counter

-Lasse