| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| SCOTUS Sez Companies Must Collect Sales Tax On Interstate Transactions |
| 2018-06-21 |
| Or, as I call it, another paragraph in the CPA Full Employment Act! [Zero Hedge] - The Supreme Court just overturned a 1992 ruling (which had limited online tax collections), thus freeing states and local governments to start collecting billions of dollars in sales taxes from internet retailers that don’t currently charge tax to their customers. Specifically, SCOTUS upheld a law passed by South Dakota lawmakers in 2016 that requires out-of-state online sellers to collect the state’s sales taxes if the companies have more than $100,000 in annual sales of products to South Dakota residents or more than 200 separate transactions involving state. Siding with states and traditional brick-and-mortar retailers on a 5-4 vote, Bloomberg reports that the court overturned a 1992 ruling that had made much of the internet a tax-free zone. That decision had shielded retailers from tax-collection duties if they didn’t have a physical presence in a state. Delivering the opinion of the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the physical presence rule in that former case is unsound and incorrect. That 'physical presence' test used to be the basis of 'Quill v. North Dakota', which until now prevented states from collecting this specific sales tax. |
| Posted by:Raj |
| #21 If you are sitting in CA and buy something on your computer it shouldn't really matter where the company you do business with is, you owe CA. That's the Supremes judgement I believe. Previously it was the opposite, no matter where you were it was where the company you do business with is situated was vital and where you were didn't matter. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2018-06-21 23:20 |
| #20 more jobs and sales for low tax states and localities - more reasons for people to move away from the high tax places like NY City Chicago LA Seattle and San Francisco |
| Posted by: Squinty Elmuse7861 2018-06-21 23:15 |
| #19 The "internet sales sites" roster includes Craigslist and EBay amongst others. Enforcing sales tax compliance here will be difficult to impossible. Widespread disrespect for compliance with one law leads to failure to comply with others. This is a short term gain for Amazon (increasing costs to marginal competitors) and long term loss to governments spending dollars to capture income measured in pennies |
| Posted by: Blossom Hupager6063 2018-06-21 20:56 |
| #18 This is nothing new then for CT, which has been taxing Amazon sales for some time. Their aggressive rape and pillaging of taxpayers is a primary reason the state is dying. |
| Posted by: Regular joe 2018-06-21 18:31 |
| #17 magpie - it would be the state of residence of the buyer - the fact that the purchase took place on a plane is not relevant. The tax authorities will look at the purchaser's address to determine what state's sales tax law applies on the purchase. |
| Posted by: Raj 2018-06-21 17:15 |
| #16 You *buy/download* an e-book while flying from CA to NY... Who gets the Sales Tax? CA-NV-CO...PA, or NY? Is it your home address? The corporate headquarters address of the seller? |
| Posted by: magpie 2018-06-21 16:59 |
| #15 I assume CA can only tax good bought or sold in CA. Exactly right - I should've mentioned that in the original post. |
| Posted by: Raj 2018-06-21 16:53 |
| #14 I assume CA can only tax good bought or sold in CA. Not even Caliphornia could tax something sold in Maryland and delivered to Texas! Besides, what other state besides SD has a law in place? Certainly, many states will rush to implement the new tax, but it'll take a while to decide how to divvy up the boodle. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2018-06-21 16:39 |
| #13 "I don't get this. How can CA tax someone buying goods in another state? Isn't this like traditional mail order or a chain of shops, where you pay the tax to the state you're buying in?" Traditionally, a state's ability to legislate stops at its borders. You had to have a physical presence in the state. CA has been especially aggressive on this point. A company with a sales rep who lives in CA, or a customer in CA, is forced to file CA taxes even if the company itself has no presence there. This ruling potentially unleashed CA from even that low threshold. Say you work as a contractor for the local branch of a company based in CA. Say you are an accountant with a customer in CA, even though you live and are licensed in another state. Guess who gets to file CA tax returns from now on. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2018-06-21 15:29 |
| #12 There are companies that provide this service |
| Posted by: newc 2018-06-21 15:23 |
| #11 From 7:45 Caliphornia is taxing people into leaving. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2018-06-21 15:11 |
| #10 So how do I know my paid state sales tax goes to my state? In a B&M I have a receipt, on the web I have a CC charge. Does 'Filters-R-Us' in North Carolina send my state fees to Texas? Do out of state vendors arbitrage the tax money? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2018-06-21 14:47 |
| #9 Coming soon |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-06-21 14:08 |
| #8 Joe, big cities have been actively pushing for this for years. When can we have a windfall tax on tax increases? Oh, wonder who will deal with all the tax ids and exemptions they have now? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2018-06-21 13:37 |
| #7 Now California can tax everyone. I don't get this. How can CA tax someone buying goods in another state? Isn't this like traditional mail order or a chain of shops, where you pay the tax to the state you're buying in? |
| Posted by: regular joe 2018-06-21 13:34 |
| #6 Sales tax. In the Wi-Fi Age how do you determine if you are in a particular city's jurisdiction or no? Dollars to donuts this what the the big cities like NYC, or Seattle, are drooling at the thought of. |
| Posted by: magpie 2018-06-21 13:27 |
| #5 Now California can tax everyone. Well done, SCOTUS. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2018-06-21 12:45 |
| #4 "subject to legislative determination, not judicial" Wouldn't it be nice if our federal legislature did its job? |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2018-06-21 12:31 |
| #3 Why am I thinking "speed traps on Internet"? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2018-06-21 12:09 |
| #2 Sounds like a great business opportunity- a company to provide sales tax handling for all jurisdictions. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2018-06-21 12:05 |
| #1 Amazon can afford the calculations, and remember, the local city and county add-ons. Mom and Pop shops, not so much. Goodbye eBay. This is like 'Net Neutrality', big boys can suck up the Netflix bandwidth hogging traffic. Little operations out in the boonies providing service, where the ROE doesn't attract the big boys, get killed by the bandwidth that is not pegged to the usage. I think it is wrong because it crosses the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution and is subject to legislative determination, not judicial. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-06-21 11:38 |