Article

2009-02-03 Home Front Economy

Massachusetts Attempts to Tax Retail sales in NH

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 mhw 2009-02-03 11:51|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 Ha ha ha. Oh boy is this good. NY threatened to do something like that years ago and sent agents to mark down NY license plates that were shopping in Elizabeth, NJ. Didn't last long.

Posted by flushing_kenny 2009-02-03 12:12|| 2009-02-03 12:12|| Front Page Top

#2 Louisiana has taxed purchases made out of state for years - but the burden of reporting and paying is on the Louisiana resident, as a line on the income tax form. Needless to say, compliance is not perfect. I have trouble seeing how Taxachusetts has jurisdiction to require NH merchants to do anything.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-02-03 13:02|| 2009-02-03 13:02|| Front Page Top

#3 Taxatusetts: "Hey those are our serfs to extort from".

Posted by Bright Pebbles the flatulent 2009-02-03 13:24|| 2009-02-03 13:24|| Front Page Top

#4 These aren't NH businesses, they are Mass businesses with 25 stores in Mass. They can keep the 25 store in Mass and pay the tax or they can close them. The next step will be to tax internet purchases. And that is where this is really headed. And Bambi will support it.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-02-03 13:42|| 2009-02-03 13:42|| Front Page Top

#5 Taxachusetts voters need to be reminded of this at the next election. Are you a voter or a serf?

Posted by Steve White 2009-02-03 13:47|| 2009-02-03 13:47|| Front Page Top

#6 Are you a voter or a serf?

Both. The voters defeated MA income tax repeal by 2 to 1 last fall.

Voters reject income tax repeal

Proponents were outspent 10:1 by people who like taxes.

And, yes, MA also has a line on the state income tax form requiring you to remit MA sales tax on your out of state purchases for which you paid no tax.

Posted by KBK 2009-02-03 15:36|| 2009-02-03 15:36|| Front Page Top

#7 Catch me if you can, bitches...

Posted by tu3031 2009-02-03 15:44|| 2009-02-03 15:44|| Front Page Top

#8 It's not a first-of-its-kind case, it's a purely unconstitutional imposition of costs on one state by another. It'll never survive the first federal court challenge.

Posted by AzCat 2009-02-03 17:35|| 2009-02-03 17:35|| Front Page Top

#9 OTOH, on CNN AM, US$40.0BILYUHN-AND-THENSOME DEFICIT-RIDDEN CALIFORNIA is NO LONGER NOT JUST "CALIFORNIA" OR THE "[US]STATE OF CALIFORNIA", BUT IS NOW "THE CAL-ZONE/CALIFORNIA ZONE", as in OWG-NWO SOVEREIGN ZONE = EURO-ZONE!

OTHER WEST COAST US STATES?

DARE BLAGO, ILLINOIS, + DETROIT = MICHIGAN
[OWG "Great Lakes" FTZ-SEZ-EEZ]???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-02-03 22:19|| 2009-02-03 22:19|| Front Page Top

23:56 .5MT
23:55 .5MT
23:53 .5MT
23:50 .5MT
23:48 .5MT
23:46 .5MT
23:36 .5MT
23:31 .5MT
23:24 OldSpook
23:24 .5MT
23:20 OldSpook
23:19 Frank G
23:18 .5MT
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:17 OldSpook
23:16 Steve White
23:11 .5MT
23:06 Barbara Skolaut
23:06 .5MT
23:02 .5MT
23:01 JosephMendiola
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:53 JosephMendiola
22:52 Zhang Fei