OT Amazon to begin charging state sales tax

Page 13 of 13  
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.
--
I'm never going to grow up.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"PeterD" wrote in message
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. <g>
--
Ed Huntress


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

Yep. Quill had no footprint in North Dakota ("nexus"). The state DID try to make their case with the following argument:
1. Quill ships copy paper into the state. 2. Some (all?) of this paper ends up in landfills within the state, therefore, 3. Quill has a responsibility to see to it North Dakota is recompensed for this expense.
You can't make this stuff up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
PeterD <peter2 hipson.net> wrote:

And WTF is that supposed to mean?

Please grow up at least enough to post coherently.
--















> Path:
news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!feeder.erje.net!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail

  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/23/11 03:10 pm, Robert Neville wrote:

But the tax that Michigan, for example, expects people to pay on out-of-state purchases is not a "Sales Tax" but a "Use Tax," and I assume that there is a Michigan law that establishes such a tax.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Absolutely. But collecting that tax is Michigan's problem, not Amazons when Amazon doesn't have a presence in Michigan.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:15:40 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"

True enough, but the point being that there is no way to compel ME, or a ME entity (corporation), to collect a tax for MI. MI *can* (attempt to) collect the tax from the MI resident. However, that isn't working out so well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Notat Home wrote:

In addition to complexity and ignorance, there's at least one more reason: Simple refusal.
Several years ago, Dallas County, Texas, quit sending out ad valorem tax notices on automobiles registered in the county. There was such widespread refusal to pay the tax, that it cost the county more to send out the tax notices than they collected.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Notat Home <not home.com> wrote:

After listening to a little bit of the Senate discussion... Maybe what has changed is the technology for Amazon and others (over a certain size) to charge the tax and have the tax instantly credited to the appropriate state. In that way, Amazon will not be technically collecting the tax because it won't actually receive the tax, it might not see any benefit like cash flow or whatever.

Yup.
--







> It would certainly be fairer to all to have the same tax for
> in-state and out of state purchases.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

begin?
They all ready do charge tax (NYS tax for me)
I rarely order from them now.
Cheers
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.