Pipes Magazine » Pipe Tobacco Discussion

Search Forums  
   
Tags:  No tags yet. 

Internet Sales Tax Decision is...

(139 posts)
  • Started 12 months ago by prairiedruid
  • Latest reply from perdurabo
  1. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I've been thinking about moving to a fee structure that only charges for licensing my images. Licensing is not subject to sales tax in Pennsylvania.

    Posted 12 months ago #
  2. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I've been thinking about moving to a fee structure that only charges for licensing my images. Licensing is not subject to sales tax in Pennsylvania.

    Not a bad idea.

    It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

    It is pointless to argue with a fanatic since a dim bulb can't be converted into a searchlight. - Jesse Silver
    Posted 12 months ago #
  3. brooklynpiper

    brooklynpiper

    Member
    Joined: May 2018
    Posts: 190

    online

    Login to Send PM

    Anybody else in NY know anything about how this might effect us? I know some of our tobacco taxes are crazy. I used to think smoking cigarettes was unattractive - now I just see a girl with a career.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  4. User has not uploaded an avatar

    jitterbugdude

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2014
    Posts: 1,034

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Licensing is not subject to sales tax in Pennsylvania

    Give them time my friend... give them time!

    Posted 11 months ago #
  5. seacaptain

    seacaptain

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2015
    Posts: 1,866

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Sounds like an opportunity for an enterprising software maker to supply an updatable application for computing the additional costs based on zip code if that doesn't already exist.

    It's not even that simple, which shows the Pandora's box of crap they opened with this ruling. For instance, I live in a zip code that encompasses part of a city and part of a county. If the city charges taxes and the county doesn't, then you'd have to drill down to each individual address to get it right.

    And this is what happens when you rule that states can regulate commerce across state lines. The founders had it right, only Congress should be doing that, not the courts.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  6. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    It's not even that simple, which shows the Pandora's box of crap they opened with this ruling. For instance, I live in a zip code that encompasses part of a city and part of a county. If the city charges taxes and the county doesn't, then you'd have to drill down to each individual address to get it right.

    Well, that does complicate things a bit.

    And this is what happens when you rule that states can regulate commerce across state lines. The founders had it right, only Congress should be doing that, not the courts.

    Except that that's not what happened here and it's a fallacious argument. The court ruled that states can regulate commerce within their borders and that residents of that state don't have a right to ignore that. The point of sale is your keyboard in your home within the borders of the state in which you reside. WeSellSlaveLabor.com may have inventory, but it's not a sale until you buy it and you're buying it from within your state of residence and bringing it to your state of residence for use within your state of residence. The Framers had a lot right and they also didn't cover a lot of ground about things they could not foresee.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  7. bnichols23

    Bill Nichols

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2018
    Posts: 2,521

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Totally concur, Bard. That's one of the main sticking points in originalist approach to constitutional law.

    Head Black Frigate keelhauler, boss powder monkey, & troublemaker 1st class.
    Posted 11 months ago #
  8. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Right. And if the Founders were really the geniuses that some idiots make them out to be, then they would have banned the internet.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  9. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Posted 11 months ago #
  10. hoosierpipeguy

    hoosierpipeguy

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2018
    Posts: 1,767

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Here's the summary. Buy as much tobacco as you can as quickly as you can. It's not getting any cheaper or more available.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  11. floridapipeman

    floridapipeman

    Junior Member
    Joined: Jun 2018
    Posts: 57

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I’d like to see how each state is going to police all the merchants in every state. I can eventually see that they’ll force credit card companies to do the distribution for all merchants to the states. The IRS got them to report all credit card sales so it’s inevitable.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  12. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    They don't have to police every merchant in every state. Just make an example out of a few of them, that's all.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  13. hoosierpipeguy

    hoosierpipeguy

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2018
    Posts: 1,767

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    20% of the companies will account for spins 80% of the revenue. They'll focus on collecting from that 20%. Others will prefer to comply and collect/pay the taxes versus the threat of penalties and having their business shut down.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  14. floridapipeman

    floridapipeman

    Junior Member
    Joined: Jun 2018
    Posts: 57

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I’d like to see how a sale in Tennessee is going to enforce my sales from Florida, I think it’s going to be a long road down that pike before they get it all figured out. In the meantime, enjoy your out-ot-state purchases.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  15. seacaptain

    seacaptain

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2015
    Posts: 1,866

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Except that that's not what happened here and it's a fallacious argument. The court ruled that states can regulate commerce within their borders and that residents of that state don't have a right to ignore that.

    Like I said up thread, the real beef states have is against the citizens of their own state for not self reporting, but yet somehow this ruling will allow states to force companies in other states to comply with their tax collection laws.

    That's pretty much the definition of states regulating commerce across state lines.

    If it were done in congress, like the Constitution says, they could spell it all out in legislation and it wouldn't be the dumpster fire that it's going to be with just a court ruling.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  16. User has not uploaded an avatar

    aldecaker

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Feb 2015
    Posts: 4,474

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    "force companies in other states to comply with their tax collection laws."

    I'm not seeing a lot of wiggle room here for saying that that statement is not regulating commerce across state lines.

    A man who serves his country is a patriot. A man who serves his government is an employee. The two are not always the same thing.
    Posted 11 months ago #
  17. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Like I said up thread, the real beef states have is against the citizens of their own state for not self reporting, but yet somehow this ruling will allow states to force companies in other states to comply with their tax collection laws.

    That's pretty much the definition of states regulating commerce across state lines.

    And as I've written, it's protecting states rights to regulate commerce within their borders, which is what is happening with regard to user taxes. Your definition is fine as long as it ignores the facts.

    The question might be raised whether use taxes are currently Constitutionally valid. But it would seem that SCOTUS has decided that they are.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  18. seacaptain

    seacaptain

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2015
    Posts: 1,866

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    And as I've written, it's protecting states rights to regulate commerce within their borders, which is what is happening with regard to user taxes. Your definition is fine as long as it ignores the facts.

    A business in another state isn't "within their borders". I'm not sure why you're insisting it is.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  19. User has not uploaded an avatar

    aldecaker

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Feb 2015
    Posts: 4,474

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    What in the hell did they do in the good old days when vendors sent you a catalog, you saw something you wanted, and ordered it by phone? Or, back in the Old-Westy Sears and Roebuck day, by Pony Express, FFS? Did states just say, "Ah, screw it, I guess we're just gonna go broke"?

    I guess I'm missing something huge here, Jesse. Here's how I break it down:

    1. Is ordering something online "commerce"? Yes.

    2. Are the two parties to the commerce across state lines? Yes.

    3. Is making the vendor report or collect tax on the transaction "regulation"? Yes.

    I understand how the game is played, and that part I'm not arguing. It goes like this:

    Guy who really likes machine guns: "My state not letting me have a machine gun is an infringement on my right to bear arms!"

    SCOTUS: "No, it isn't."

    Guy: "But, but...infringe means-"

    SCOTUS: "We KNOW what "infringe" means, and this is not an infringement. GO AWAY."

    Guy: "Awww..."

    Posted 11 months ago #
  20. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    There are many other similar situations where a state compels an out-of-state entity to comply with their laws. State laws on firearm and magazine shipments come to mind. As does Washington’s laws on tobacco shipments.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  21. brian64

    brian64

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2011
    Posts: 5,117

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    A business in another state isn't "within their borders".

    Exactly. If I travel to another state and purchase something, the sales tax goes to the state where the business is located, not to my state. I'm essentially "traveling" when I visit an on-line store. It seems (on the surface at least) that whether it's mail order or internet it would be simpler for the sales tax to go to the state where the business is located.

    But I'm sure there are other complications that would arise that way as well...the devil is always in the details.

    “Bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.” – George Carlin
    Posted 11 months ago #
  22. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    'm essentially "traveling" when I visit an on-line store.
    Except, you aren’t. Unless you are are actually in another state when you place the order.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  23. brian64

    brian64

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2011
    Posts: 5,117

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    And I thought we were living in a virtual world now.

    EDIT: perhaps the virtual travel argument doesn't hold...but I'm still doing business with a store in another state. If I'm not virtually traveling, then they don't have a virtual presence in my state either.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  24. seacaptain

    seacaptain

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2015
    Posts: 1,866

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    State laws on firearm and magazine shipments come to mind.

    I have some knowledge in this area, guns being one of my many hobbies.

    Let me give you a few examples.

    First, Federal law trumps state laws.

    So, if you're shipping a firearm across state lines, it must ship to someone with an FFL (Federal Firearms License).

    The FFL does a background check on the purchaser before releasing the firearm.

    Where state law come into play is if the firearm isn't state "compliant", the FFL will not release it to the purchaser and it will go back to the seller. Rather than put up with the hassle of misunderstandings, many sellers won't ship to certain states, but they can.

    The state isn't regulating the business in the other state, the state is regulating what the citizen of their own state can legally purchase.

    Again, the analogy with sales tax is that the state should be enforcing collection of sales tax against the citizens of their own states, not asking the court for permission to force businesses in other states to comply with their laws and collect taxes on their behalf.

    In the gun analogy it would be like California, which bans certain types/models of guns, to force manufacturers in other states to stop manufacturing them because they aren't allowed in California. In other words, forcing them to comply with California law.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  25. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I've always felt like the world might not really exist, but it keeps hitting me on the head anyways.

    Either way, the State feels that it has the ability to tax what it's subjects residents buy, wherever they may buy it.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  26. User has not uploaded an avatar

    aldecaker

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Feb 2015
    Posts: 4,474

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I have a sneaking suspicion California would like to bar every state from doing anything California doesn't like.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  27. seacaptain

    seacaptain

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2015
    Posts: 1,866

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    EDIT: perhaps the virtual travel argument doesn't hold..

    I think the virtual argument is quite clear, and consistent with a physical presence.

    Think of it this way - The place you purchase an item is at the point of sale, not the point of origin.

    In a physical store, the point of sale is the cashier or card reader accepting my payment, NOT my hand which holds the payment.

    In the virtual world, the point of sale is the website accepting my payment, whatever state they're in, not my finger hitting the send button from my keyboard.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  28. brian64

    brian64

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2011
    Posts: 5,117

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I agree seacaptain. That's how I've always thought of it. And it sure would simplify things.

    For larger entities such as Amazon who are located all over the place, the sales tax should apply to wherever the product is shipping from, IMO.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  29. brian64

    brian64

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2011
    Posts: 5,117

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I have a sneaking suspicion California would like to bar every state from doing anything California doesn't like.

    I suspect CA would also like to force everyone to do everything they do like.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  30. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    A business in another state isn't "within their borders". I'm not sure why you're insisting it is.

    The transaction is "within their borders" and the use is "within their borders". Them's the facts.

    As for Congress moving to protect Internet purchases against user taxes, forget about it. A large and vociferous constituency of B&M based businesses will be tar and feathering congressmen in that instance.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  31. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    In the virtual world, the point of sale is the website accepting my payment, whatever state they're in, not my finger hitting the send button from my keyboard.

    Which can be debated, since you made the decision and took the action to do business, engage in commerce, etc in your living room in the state in which you reside.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  32. seacaptain

    seacaptain

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2015
    Posts: 1,866

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    The transaction is "within their borders" and the use is "within their borders". Them's the facts.

    You're confusing opinion with "fact". It may be a fact that the use of the item occurs in the state, but I think the transaction occurs at the point of sale, which as I explained above is at the point where the website accepts the payment.

    At any rate, again, the real beef that states have is that their citizens aren't complying with voluntary disclosure laws. Instead of addressing that, which is too burdensome for the state, they got the court to rule that they can force out of state business to comply with their laws and collect taxes on their behalf, which I think is a bad ruling.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  33. seacaptain

    seacaptain

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2015
    Posts: 1,866

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Which can be debated, since you made the decision and took the action to do business, engage in commerce, etc in your living room in the state in which you reside.

    Ok, let me give you another example that supports my position that a transaction occurs at the point of sale, which is the place that the payment is accepted, NOT where it originates.

    I live literally about 10 miles from the border of a neighboring state. What if I take my computer to a wifi cafe in the nearest town across the border and order some stuff on line. Did the transaction take place in my state? In the state I was physically in when I hit the "send payment" button? Or the state where the retailer accepted my payment?

    Obviously the latter is always and the only common denominator in any scenario. A point of sale has nothing to do with the origin of the payment and everything to do with where the payment is actually accepted.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  34. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    You're confusing opinion with "fact". It may be a fact that the use of the item occurs in the state, but I think the transaction occurs at the point of sale, which as I explained above is at the point where the website accepts the payment.

    I'm not confusing anything. Just because you think something is so, doesn't make it so.

    There was an act, called The Internet Tax Freedom Act, that was proposed in the late '90's that died in Congress. There just isn't support for a free ride.

    And there are a number of cases involving states right to tax on interstate commerce where Congress and/or SCOTUS has already ruled on favor of the states, so this isn't exactly new.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  35. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Did the transaction take place in my state? In the state I was physically in when I hit the "send payment" button? Or the state where the retailer accepted my payment?

    Based on precedent, the transaction took place in the state you're in when you made that transaction. Hopefully that other state won't be coming after you for their share of that transaction.

    Apples are not oranges.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  36. brian64

    brian64

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2011
    Posts: 5,117

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    So, it all sounds like the tax is actually on the buyer and not on the sale (especially if "use" has something to do with it)...and that he or she technically owes sales tax to both states...regardless of whether the transaction is on-line or in person (in the case of travel).

    Posted 11 months ago #
  37. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Last but not least, this is a USE tax. Buying from out of state for use in the state, instead of buying locally, and thus depriving local businesses of commerce and the taxes otherwise derived from that commerce, is also what this is about. That point of interstate commerce has been ruled on by Congress in favor of the states.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  38. ron123

    ron123

    Member
    Joined: Jan 2015
    Posts: 179

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Sable, That's the silver lining of this cloud...hopefully it helps brick and mortars.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  39. seacaptain

    seacaptain

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2015
    Posts: 1,866

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I'm not confusing anything. Just because you think something is so, doesn't make it so.

    Ironic post is ironic.

    And there are a number of cases involving states right to tax on interstate commerce where Congress and/or SCOTUS has already ruled on favor of the states, so this isn't exactly new.

    Correct, and they required the business to have a presence in the state for the state to be able to collect sales tax even if the item was ordered on line. What's new with this ruling is that the business no longer is required to have a presence in the state for the state to force the business to collect taxes on it's behalf. In effect, allowing states to regulate interstate commerce.

    Apples are not oranges.

    Indeed, at this point you seem to want to argue just for the sake of arguing, not because you have a rational point to make, which you don't.

    Anyway, I've made my points for others who have an open mind to consider, so I'm done with this thread. You can have the last word.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  40. User has not uploaded an avatar

    aldecaker

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Feb 2015
    Posts: 4,474

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    "That point of interstate commerce has been ruled on by Congress in favor of the states."

    Yes, yes it has. Which is exactly what I was illustrating with the "how the game is played" example.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  41. kanaia

    kanaia

    Senior Member
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 460

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Next on the agenda will be a ban on shipping tobacco to private residences under the guise of minors using tobacco. It's just a matter of time.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  42. pipestud

    pipestud

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Dec 2012
    Posts: 1,737

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I just received an email from the "We are Here" coalition (a Washington D.C. lobbyist group), that has been stumping nationally for our cause. This is the first comment from them since the new ruling -

    SCOTUS Rules on Internet Sales Tax

    The U.S. Supreme Court has officially overturned the long-upheld Quill v North Dakota that established the common-sense 'physical presence' clause. So what does that mean for you?

    Dear Stephen,

    This week the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision on the issue of Internet sales tax. And the justices essentially split the baby.

    On the one hand, the Court overturned the long-held standard of "physical presence" embodied in the Quill v North Dakota decision of 1992. The justices decided that this notion was rooted in the past and did not reflect the realities of today's increasingly online marketplaces that span state and international boundaries. However, the Court's decision was limited to large online retailers.

    On the other hand, the Court also said that it views small businesses differently. The justices essentially vindicated a key WE R HERE point – that small businesses cannot possibly deal with all the red tape that comes with having to remit taxes to (and face audits from) 40-plus states.

    The Supreme Court left unanswered the key question of how to define a small business. For now, that question is left for federal and state legislators. Legislators often misinterpret revenue figures for small businesses in this space, who operate on razor-thin margins.

    Our fight is not yet over. The policy battle will continue as we fight to educate lawmakers on the true value of a small business. According to the Small Business Administration, $30 million dollars of yearly revenue is a small business. This is not the view of many in state and federal chambers. We must continue to combat the mega-retailers who push legislators to implement an artificially low revenue threshold.

    We will need your help, so stay tuned and stay ready to let your lawmakers know that WE R HERE.

    Sincerely,
    Phil Bond, Executive Director, WE R HERE Coalition

    Pipestud
    Posted 11 months ago #
  43. brian64

    brian64

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2011
    Posts: 5,117

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    ^Well that's clear as mud. Sounds like open season for selective enforcement.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  44. floridapipeman

    floridapipeman

    Junior Member
    Joined: Jun 2018
    Posts: 57

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I’m in business and we ship worldwide. If you order while in Tennessee and have it delivered to Florida (my home state), then you pay Florida sales tax; period. The merchant is responsible for collecting sales tax for transactions delivered within their home state.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  45. tennsmoker

    tennsmoker

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 1,185

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    OK, I think I got it.
    I buy a pipe and tobacco, say, from SP.com, or P&C.com. Good. I love pipes and tobacco.
    The purchase winds up on my credit card, right?
    Neither SP.com, nor P&C.com, have a retail presence in my hometown in Tennessee.
    When I get my future bill in the mail, I see that I have been charged 9.75 percent sales tax by my state of Tennessee.
    That is the same price I pay if I buy food, beer, whiskey, a car, go to a movie, buy popcorn and a cold drink, etc.
    So, uh, what is the problem and all the lamentations?
    Taxes are a way of life and have been for the millennium.
    And, as oldtimers once said, two things are certain in this world: taxes and death.
    OK. No need to jump up and down on my head. I don't like paying a net tax of my tobacco and pipe purchases any more than you do.
    The net was once sort of free.
    It has been taken over by advertising, Wall Street, K Street and Main Street.
    My sympathies lie with the B&Ms who have been struggling for years.
    I would go to the net before I checked the B&M, simply because I knew that I could find what I was looking for much cheaper on the net.
    Too bad the net turned out to be a capitalist hog, too.


    The past is never dead. It's not even past--Requiem for a Nun
    Posted 11 months ago #
  46. brian64

    brian64

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2011
    Posts: 5,117

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    When I get my future bill in the mail, I see that I have been charged 9.75 percent sales tax by my state of Tennessee.
    That is the same price I pay if I buy food, beer, whiskey, a car, go to a movie, buy popcorn and a cold drink, etc.
    So, uh, what is the problem and all the lamentations?

    I really have no problem with a “standard” sales tax either...the same as on other products as you say...and I don’t think most other people do either.

    The problems boil down to the following 2 issues as I see it:

    1. A “punitive” tax rate that some states place on tobacco...a rate far above the standard sales tax for other products.

    2. The burden on small businesses to deal with sales tax for every state they ship to when they have no physical presence in that state.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  47. perdurabo

    perdurabo

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 2,774

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Last but not least, this is a USE tax. Buying from out of state for use in the state, instead of buying locally, and thus depriving local businesses of commerce and the taxes otherwise derived from that commerce, is also what this is about. That point of interstate commerce has been ruled on by Congress in favor of the states.

    Protectionist Drivel

    It's not my position nor want to help another man. It's his responsibility to help himself, as where he can learn to dig down deep enough to save himself. -I. Kidd
    Posted 11 months ago #
  48. perdurabo

    perdurabo

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 2,774

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Sable, That's the silver lining of this cloud...hopefully it helps brick and mortars.

    More Protectionist Drivel

    Posted 11 months ago #
  49. perdurabo

    perdurabo

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 2,774

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    OK, I think I got it.
    I buy a pipe and tobacco, say, from SP.com, or P&C.com. Good. I love pipes and tobacco.
    The purchase winds up on my credit card, right?
    Neither SP.com, nor P&C.com, have a retail presence in my hometown in Tennessee.
    When I get my future bill in the mail, I see that I have been charged 9.75 percent sales tax by my state of Tennessee.
    That is the same price I pay if I buy food, beer, whiskey, a car, go to a movie, buy popcorn and a cold drink, etc.
    So, uh, what is the problem and all the lamentations?
    Taxes are a way of life and have been for the millennium.
    And, as oldtimers once said, two things are certain in this world: taxes and death.
    OK. No need to jump up and down on my head. I don't like paying a net tax of my tobacco and pipe purchases any more than you do.
    The net was once sort of free.
    It has been taken over by advertising, Wall Street, K Street and Main Street.
    My sympathies lie with the B&Ms who have been struggling for years.
    I would go to the net before I checked the B&M, simply because I knew that I could find what I was looking for much cheaper on the net.
    Too bad the net turned out to be a capitalist hog, too.

    Yet even more.....protectionist drivel

    Posted 11 months ago #
  50. perdurabo

    perdurabo

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 2,774

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Fed trumps state, Congress has to act. This isn't a states right issue. Interstate Commerce is a Federal ball game. Interstate Commerce is one of the main reasons we have a constitution in this country. You can't seek to level the playing field through taxes, come on guys.

    If I buy a Pipe From Smokingpipes.com, the point of sale is in South Carolina. It would be no different than me driving to South Carolina and purchasing the pipe from Smokingpipe's B&M. I live in Georgia but I'd pay the South Carolina rate for the sale made in South Carolina. Georgia has no right to that revenue, regardless. That's the only way Congress could even act on this issue. Throwing in all the protectionist drivel about this company is big they get taxed, this one is too small it gets a break is BS. Back to picking winners and losers. That's not competition

    .

    Posted 11 months ago #
  51. perdurabo

    perdurabo

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 2,774

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Sable, where I use a product has nothing to do with taxes. Are you saying that if I move to California and bring my stuff, I have to pay a tax on the stuff I brought with me in the move, because I'll be using it in California?

    Sounds funky, but Hey you might have made a new form of tax structure. Keep this to yourself, it's dangerous!

    Posted 11 months ago #
  52. mso489

    mso489

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 25,574

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    This is a huge wet blanket for online sales. States are hungry for revenue for starved educational systems through the university level and many other needs, and unfunded mandates they face, so this impels them to go for state taxes for online sales. It may hit somewhat less hard if it is built into the transaction somehow, so people won't be doing required paperwork and submitting separate tax payments, which will discourage shopping online at all. All those impulse purchases of clothes, toys, housewares, etc., will drop cold. If they make the collection of sales tax punitive besides, retail sales in general may droop or plunge as people try to figure out why everyone has their hand in their pockets. How this is done is as important as if it is done at all -- two possible bloodlettings for the buyers. If people make this partisan, it will add confusion and divisiveness and the damage will be worse all around. Hey, this is a community, remember, one nation, etc.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  53. woodsroad

    woodsroad

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2013
    Posts: 8,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Just watch. Every municipality in the US is going to want a bite of this. It will be sold to the electorate as “save local business” and “fund all day preschool”. Depending on state laws surrounding who can impose sales tax, there could be upwards a of 100,000 taxing entities looking for their share.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  54. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Sable, where I use a product has nothing to do with taxes.

    Wrong.

    It does if your state has a "use" tax, and guess what? All states except for 4 - Alaska, Delaware, Oregon, and Montana, have them on their books. You may not like or agree with it, but legally that doesn't means jack.

    Simply put, if you order something from out of state to use in your state of residence, you owe tax on it. So if you buy a tin of Virginia Slag Heap from out-of-state for your use, and have it shipped to your home, you owe tax on it.

    https://www.salestaxinstitute.com/resources/rates

    Point of sale doesn't apply, doesn't mean jack poo-poo. And, all those arguments about the point of sale are beside the point and completely, utterly, and totally MEANINGLESS.

    Enjoy.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  55. brian64

    brian64

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2011
    Posts: 5,117

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Point of sale doesn't apply, doesn't mean jack poo-poo.

    So does that mean I owe the same use tax to my state if I physically travel to another state, purchase something and bring it home to use? And if not, why not?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  56. mrenglish

    mrenglish

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Dec 2010
    Posts: 2,297

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I would think because there is no system to collect the funds for that (yet). All the states are doing is charging you taxes for Internet/MOTO sales, which, I agree is a usage tax. You would think the tax would apply from where you purchased the item but then home states cry foul about lost tax revenue, thinking you could have bought the item in your home state and duly paid the taxes to them. Which, to me, does not make a lot of sense.

    Michael
    Posted 11 months ago #
  57. brian64

    brian64

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2011
    Posts: 5,117

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    According to the info on the below page, sales taxes and use taxes are not the same thing...and are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be applied to the same item. The use tax applies to any item a consumer purchases out of state and doesn’t pay sales tax to their home state.

    So...apparently...the answer is yes...even when you physically purchase an item out of state, if you bring it home to use you owe a use tax to your state. Isn’t that special.

    But if you purchase something on-line from out of state and they apply a sales tax for your home state, then that is not a use tax. So we're basically right back where we started with the physical presence issue.

    https://www.salestaxinstitute.com/sales_tax_faqs/the_difference_between_sales_tax_and_use_tax

    Posted 11 months ago #
  58. prairiedruid

    prairiedruid

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 1,672

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    So does that mean I owe the same use tax to my state if I physically travel to another state, purchase something and bring it home to use? And if not, why not?

    Yes and it applies to other taxes as well. My border hopping once a month to buy cigarettes is technically smuggling because I'm deliberately paying Iowa tax to avoid paying Minnesota tax.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  59. perdurabo

    perdurabo

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 2,774

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Ok Sable, just because you say I'm wrong doesn't make it so. The Sales Tax Institute isn't the Constitution nor is it a statutory law or state law. We are not Europe, we do not have boarder check points between states. (I don't think Europe boarder control is as tight as it used to be) Now in California, you guys may have a more aggressive tax structure. I don't know. But the point of sale is everything when it comes to sale taxes.

    I'm not taxed by Amazon four or five times ( sale tax, servicetax, use tax) because they have a few facilities in my state. Or the grocery store for that matter. That's asinine.

    Get this smuggling thing out of your mind. Sounds like a lot of support for double and triple taxation.

    I'll make sure not to move to Cali, I'll be taxed on the items I bought while in Ga.

    Instead of being a proponent for taxes, why not be a proponent for cutting spending? Novel Idea, Huh.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  60. butsiethesungo

    butsiethesungo

    Junior Member
    Joined: Sep 2016
    Posts: 64

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I placed two separate orders on Amazon tonight and both included “estimated sales tax.”

    Fortunately, it wasnt much tax but what if there estimation had been higher?

    Posted 11 months ago #
  61. perdurabo

    perdurabo

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 2,774

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Make sure to call your Revenue Service to make sure those items do not need a "use tax" applied separately, butsiethesungo.

    The use tax, is used largely for large items, Like cars. The states usually receive those taxes when you register the car in that state, via tag fees etc.

    Don't blow the use tax out of proportion, Sable. If I buy a hammer in a Alabama, and cross the Ga boarder, the Georgia Department of Revenue isn't going to bust my ass over it. It's the larger items that they will collect on. That's in Ga, other states have different structures, though.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  62. perdurabo

    perdurabo

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 2,774

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    For the record, this decision has nothing to do with a Use Tax. In Fact, the use tax will probably be swiped off the table because of the decision, being that its unconstitutionality will not have to be tested, with its disregard and burden of and on interstate commerce. Thus forcing congress to place these taxes at the point of sale. Which isn't the keyboard, but the businesses residence. What the ruling did was destroy the idea of physical presence, so that these taxes could be collected. Now the law suits will erupt, in deciding whether the State that the business resides in will benefit or the state receiving the good will benefit....or both. I would argue that a use tax is a tariff and no state has the right to inact tariffs on another state. That's why we have a Union, to prevent this type of burden on the consumer and the seller.

    States can't do squat, until congress acts.

    At the end of the day, this is all protectionist drivel...l sales tax, use tax, service tax. These forms of taxes aren't even 100 years old and were all created to pick winners and losers, which is what this is all about anyway. If my state wants me to buy in my state, then my state needs to support policies that create an environment to entice the business to reside in my state. Greed is a bitch.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  63. folanator

    folanator

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Nov 2015
    Posts: 625

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Last time I checked our country was started over taxation without representation...

    I pay State taxes on all sales in State already.
    My fees for UPS or FEDEX have charges included already for Road Use taxes when all my packages go.

    So I already pay for the use of the other States roads. What exactly value add does the State of North Dakota bring to my company that would be worth of a tax to be paid?

    I will tell you what comes next. AUDITS by States. You watch. Cali is going to demand to see the books of companies all around the US looking for tax dollars. Wisconsin already is doing this. Straight up money grab by people that have never created value in their life. FUBAR

    Posted 11 months ago #
  64. dochudson

    dochudson

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2012
    Posts: 1,717

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    As mentioned above now is the time to stock up! Price is going up and availability is going down plus this sales tax mess.

    Ohio has a heavy tax on booze and smokes. some folks like to head south and load up on smokes and booze. The local Eagles were found selling booze without the Ohio tax seal. They no longer exist.

    I Enjoy Aromatics
    I Enjoy Peterson Pipes
    Posted 11 months ago #
  65. perdurabo

    perdurabo

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 2,774

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Interesting read on use taxes for those who care...

    Last month, a federal trial judge held that the 4 percent use tax in the U.S. Virgin Islands violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The case, Molloy v. Government of the Virgin Islands, was brought by Robert Molloy, who moved from Virginia to the Islands and was forced to pay $2,365 in use taxes for property he brought from the mainland.

    There is no sales tax in the U.S. Virgin Islands, but there is a 4 percent tax on all property brought into the territory from the mainland for personal use. These “use taxes” exist in most states and are levied on the use, storage, or other consumption within the state of goods or services purchased out of state. They usually accompany sales taxes (“sales and use tax”), and besides some high-ticket items, they are generally unenforceable.

    Back in 1937, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of use taxes in Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., so long as they were nondiscriminatory and “compensating”—that is, designed to equalize taxes on both locally produced and imported goods. In that case, the State of Washington imposed a 2 percent use tax on the use of personal property in the state, but reduced the tax by any sales tax paid to Washington or any other state. For instance, if I buy a painting in Virginia (5% rate) and use it in an office in D.C. (5.75% rate), D.C. will only tax the difference (0.75% rate).

    This is where the Virgin Islands use tax erred. Locally produced goods were tax-free, while imported goods were subject to the tax. Presumably, Molloy’s property had already been subject to sales tax somewhere else, but he still had to pay the full tax to the Virgin Islands government. As the judge put it:

    The tax favors local businesses by sparing their merchandise sold within the territory and interferes with the free flow of goods across territorial boundaries. The legislature of the Virgin Islands, in enacting this tax, was engaging in prohibited economic protectionism.
    Molloy had also argued that the tax violated the Import-Export Clause, which bars states from imposing tariffs on imports, although it is not settled that it applies domestically and not just internationally. The Court did not address this interesting argument, having already concluded the tax was unconstitutional.

    By the way, this is from 2007.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  66. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Ok Sable, just because you say I'm wrong doesn't make it so. The Sales Tax Institute isn't the Constitution nor is it a statutory law or state law. We are not Europe, we do not have boarder check points between states. (I don't think Europe boarder control is as tight as it used to be) Now in California, you guys may have a more aggressive tax structure. I don't know. But the point of sale is everything when it comes to sale taxes.

    I'm not taxed by Amazon four or five times ( sale tax, servicetax, use tax) because they have a few facilities in my state. Or the grocery store for that matter. That's asinine.

    Get this smuggling thing out of your mind. Sounds like a lot of support for double and triple taxation.

    I'll make sure not to move to Cali, I'll be taxed on the items I bought while in Ga.

    Instead of being a proponent for taxes, why not be a proponent for cutting spending? Novel Idea, Huh.

    It is a use tax. You may have bought your dingus in another state over the Internet, but you're using it in your home and your state has a use tax that is equivalent to its sales tax. All states except for five, I forgot about New Hampshire, have this. That is EXACTLY what this is about.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  67. perdurabo

    perdurabo

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 2,774

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Call it what you want, it's a tariff.

    I actually get what your saying Sable, and agree. As long as commerce is not burdened. The use tax is a sales tax. There are 45 different versions. My state wouldn't bust me over my dingus, but would bust me over your dingus, depending how large a purchase I made for your dingus.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  68. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,465

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Stay away from my dingus!

    In any event, it's a zero sum deal since, in California, I can deduct the amount I paid in use tax from my state income tax.

    Posted 11 months ago #
  69. perdurabo

    perdurabo

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 2,774

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Posted 11 months ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.

 

 

    Back To Top  | Back to Forum Home Page

   Members Online Now
   pepesdad1, lightxmyfire, dmcmtk, cigrmaster, jfred, cohibajoe, yaddy306, hawky454, brooklynpiper, rslvid99, chilllucky, zion, ryeguy