"PeterD" wrote in message
On 11/23/2011 12:11 PM, Notat Home wrote:
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>
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,
3. Quill has a responsibility to see to it North Dakota is recompensed for
You can't make this stuff up.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
In addition to complexity and ignorance, there's at least one more reason:
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.
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.
> It would certainly be fairer to all to have the same tax for > in-state and out of state purchases.
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.