Internet Sales Tax Case at the US Supreme Court

[perdurabo]

When it comes to taxes, I think we should just let these morons have the mic.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-tax-march-20180415-story.html

 

[perdurabo]

Does anybody know if the arrangement of these Midwest states that Oldgeezer has sited above are Covered in this court case? I would expect that the Federal government needs to step in on this.

 

[perdurabo]

Looking at the problem with Amazon is one thing, but with very small online businesses, it will kill off a whole other segment of small business.

Bingo! It's all about mobility.

 

[oldgeezersmoker]

@perdurabo, all sorts of interstate compacts have long been held to be constitutional. Can't imagine this one wouldn't be.

 

[seacaptain]

US Constitution Article 1, Section 10.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

 

[oldgeezersmoker]

@seacaptain, see the Supreme Court case, Virginia v Tennessee. Really a supremacy issue, not sure how Federal supremacy is threatened.

 

[brian64]

US Constitution Article 1, Section 10.

¿de qué es esta Constitución de la que hablas?

 

[perdurabo]

After reading the Quill descision, I don't see an issue with the courts overturning this. It aligns with the Constitution as Seacaptain has sited. If it's overturned it really does nothing, because congress has the final say. If it is overturned, I've got one word: Activism.
As I understand Congress gave consent to Virginia and Tennessee.

 

[sablebrush52]

Very interesting discussion. Congress has approved interstate compacts for the exchange of tax data, mutual tax exemptions and the like. So there are legal precedents which could be cited. Should be interesting to see where this settles out.

 

[sablebrush52]

Oh, and one more thing. Article 1, Section 10 is not an absolute blanket rule governing all interstate agreements. It pertains to those agreements, covenants or treaties between state or between states and a foreign power, which would result in political, military, or economic threat to, or destabilization of, the Federal government.

 

[perdurabo]

To add to Sables post:
http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/congressional-consent-and-permission-states-enter-interstate-compacts

A literal interpretation of the compact clause would conclude all interstate agreements must obtain the approval of Congress before they take effect and carry the weight of law. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that “any” does not mean “all” in the context of interstate compacts and congressional consent. To clear up the ambiguity of the compact clause, the U.S. Supreme Court in Virginia v. Tennessee held that Congress must approve only two types of compacts:

Ok, this where I have a bone to pick. The Supreme Court does not create law, but interprets law. And "any"only refers to the dependent clause "lay any duty of Tonnage"
Any: (according to Goofle) used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or many
Rallying around one word is a little extreme, but this is how Judicial Activism happens. It's a huge problem, and it's not going away anytime soon.

 

[perdurabo]

The edit timed out, and of course "Any agreement or compact"

 

[oldgeezersmoker]

The interstate compact at issue, as I understand it, only involves information sharing. Illinois is not collecting revenue for, say, Wisconsin, only providing information to it. What Wisconsin chooses to do with it is, as I understand it, up to Wisconsin (in my example). Of course we all know that these states are trying to circumvent Quill, but the Supreme Court, while it may not be inclined to reverse Quill, doesn't seem to want to expand it.

 

[prairiedruid]

but the Supreme Court, while it may not be inclined to reverse Quill, doesn't seem to want to expand it.

Not expand it but if a state takes this information given to it and charges the tax to the individual citizen of that same state it is an end run around Quill and maybe constitutionally legitimate. That is why I mentioned how the Court talked about Colorado's tax plan and the justice's "seemed" okay with it. This is during oral arguments so the justices may have been using Colorado's example as a point of argument and not as approval. If you haven't guessed I love watching the dance of the Supreme's.

 

[brian64]

Personally I think we'd be better off going back to the original Articles of Confederation...but that's just me...I'm kind of a throwback.

 

[jpmcwjr]

I think I understand how the compacts can work, but am not clear on what, say, Arkansas can do to me, a hypothetical business in the West, when they send a certified letter telling me to fork over the names and such of their citizens' purchases. I'd be inclined to tell them to go fish. (Catfish most likely) Or send a nicely redacted piece of paper.
Now, Amazon, etc, would likely comply even if they had no "presence" in Arkansas.

 

[sablebrush52]

I think I understand how the compacts can work, but am not clear on what, say, Arkansas can do to me, a hypothetical business in the West, when they send a certified letter telling me to fork over the names and such of their citizens' purchases.

I agree that the likelihood of anything happening is pretty remote, for now, but let's say that Arkansas and the state in which you conduct business have a reciprocal agreement to supply such information and your state has a requirement for you to report your sales. You could be compelled to comply or lose your business license.

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

It is absolutely, IMHO, inevitable, this would happen. Too much money involved for the government's to keep their grubby, greedy hands off of it. They will figure it out. You say one state can't force you to do snitching about it? Try being from Indiana, get a speeding ticket in Ohio and refuse to pay it. See how that works out for you when it comes time next year to register your vehicle. Besides that, if you live in Alabama, but tobacco from Pennsylvania, it isn't Pennsylvania that would come after you. It is your own state losing out on the tax revenue.
At some point, enough of the states will agree to cooperate that all will be forced to fold and give in. Whether it is a year, five or ten, it is inevitable. I'll bet it happens within five years.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

The problem right now, is that I don't keep a record of addresses. I print the shipping label, and the bare minimum I keep is either the person's name, or if Paypal or 4Square, just their handle they use. I am not allowed to keep any record of credit card information, so I merely print the label that is generated by the CC POS.

I can't collect addresses, unless I ask and I have to have a purpose, and this is why they have those boxes on the expensive websites to ask permission to be put on mailing lists.
I can pay a company thousands to create a big website that has the customers create profiles, but that is way beyond the scope of my business. And, if each state uses different software to record customer data or collect taxes (or if there are even just five or six amongst all of the states) that becomes a record keeping nightmare for a one person business. Now, I have to post each month my sales taxes, even if I don't have any for that month, so monthly I could potentially have to report top six different sets of software.
Then there is the evil that I am doing my customers. They buy a custom wedding band for $2000, and then months later their states tells them that they owe $200, and that reflects on me for having snitched them. I know some companies already do this, but I don't buy from these places. And, I don't want to be in the same arena with those companies that comply.
For what I sale, I don't have state sales taxes, except when I do shows and sale in person, and other states don't have them at all. So, where does the benefit go to live in a place that doesn't, if I am forced to comply with some other nitwit state's inane laws?
Hey, I am all about schools, roads, emergency services. I pay my taxes without complaint. I never bawk when they raise my property taxes. I just don't want to comply with paying some dimwit services in some other dimwit state.
If I get a speeding ticket in Illinois, I was actually there, and they record my licence information. And, some states will hold you till they get paid. Tennessee does this sometimes. But, it doesn't show up on my car tag, it is my driver's licence, and my state doesn't recognize out of state tickets. But, it is reported to my insurance. So, I pay it, especially if I ever want to drive through Illinois again. But, there are no footprints to my business dealings with Illinois via the internet. Even my own state relies solely on my truthfulness and threat of audit. So, a ticket and being forced to do monthly reports or buys software is ridiculous, especially for businesses that are just single person owned and operated, which is the majority of the internet. I don't have teams of people filling orders for me. But, ye when these powers that be discuss it, I am sure that Amazon, John Deere, and BigBix.com are what are on their minds. Companies that can afford expensive login services and data collections.
Whereas the online potter, or pipemaker, or vintage appliance sellers or doodad makers, will be the majority of gets hit the hardest.

 

[dochudson]

The tax man has put many folks behind bars that the FBI couldn't. It's not a matter of if but when.