Article

2011-09-12 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Savings.com "Dear John" Letter to the State of California

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by DarthVader 2011-09-12 11:02|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 Priceless! :-D

Posted by Barbara 2011-09-12 12:42|| 2011-09-12 12:42|| Front Page Top

#2 That just made my day!

Posted by eltoroverde 2011-09-12 14:26|| 2011-09-12 14:26|| Front Page Top

#3 As I understand it, the bill in question has already been put on hold (by mutual agreement with business) in order to give Amazon et al time to lobby Washington for comprehensive interstate legislation. Thus, this letter from savings.com seems so ill-conceived and ill-timed that it jumped the shark even as it was being pounded out on the executive steno's Underwood.

Times have changed. The Internet was given tax collecting leniency in the past in order to let on-line business get its collective feet on the ground. On-line business is now standing tall financially and no longer needs an assist from the US taxpayer.

Posted by Pollyandrew 2011-09-12 14:37|| 2011-09-12 14:37|| Front Page Top

#4 The Internet was given tax collecting leniency in the past in order to let on-line business get its collective feet on the ground.

Any different than the proforma licenses issued to television stations? Seems that they've survived the 'infant technology' phase and aren't going out of business left and right. How about a royalty fee like mining or forestry companies pay for use of federal lands, in this case the public use of the electromagnetic spectrum. It can even be 'progressive' based upon the power of their transmitter. Let play first in, first out. Let's see the proposed tax on those boys first.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-09-12 14:55|| 2011-09-12 14:55|| Front Page Top

#5 The problem is not taxes collected in the state where the transactions occurred. IAW with Quill Corp. vs North Dakota no one has argued that if they had a physical presence in the state whether they will collect and pay taxes. It is were the commercial transaction physically occurs outside of the state seeking taxes.

1 - a webmaster in CA running a blog that is on a server in UT has a referral button to company A in FL. Surfer in ME see said blog on the web and clicks on the referral. That results in a sale that is processed on a server in MO. Company A pays the referrer a small fee for the referral. No one disputes that the webmaster is on the line for 'income tax' in the transaction. What is disputed is that anyone owes CA any sales tax for the transactions that were completed between seller and buyer beyond its sovereign jurisdiction per Quill.

2 - similarly same scenario as above but Company A has a warehouse in TX. Company A directs the warehouse to ship that part of its inventory that was ordered by the customer in ME the item(s). TX now claims sales tax as well. Now company A wouldn't contest the collection and payment of taxes, if the recipient lived in TX, but since the party is out of state and the transaction was between ME and FL, believes the sales tax is not valid. Company A closes said warehouse and moves to another state that wants employment and the usual taxes incumbent with employees.

It's not going to be resolved in Congress because everyone wants a piece of the action and the instance of transaction can only occur in one state. The Senate will inhibit the big states from ganging up on the small states in the fight. What could happen is that the Fed levy a 5% sales tax that it'll keep for itself giving the internet companies immunity from the states. That'll make a lot of happy people. /sarc off

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-09-12 15:24|| 2011-09-12 15:24|| Front Page Top

23:54 trailing wife
23:50 Water Modem
23:09 Adriane
23:07 phil_b
23:03 American Delight
22:54 Frank G
22:52 Frank G
22:50 rammer
22:44 Perfesser
22:39 Perfesser
22:32 SteveS
21:49 Dale
21:44 phil_b
21:10 Procopius2k
21:07 49 Pan
21:03 bman
21:00 Dale
20:59 JohnQC
20:50 JohnQC
20:47 bman
20:32 Alaska Paul
20:26 Frank G
20:09 JohnQC
20:08 JohnQC