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.
Internet Sales Tax Decision is...
- Thread starter prairiedruid
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Ironic post is ironic.
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.
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. :
:
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
.
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
.
- Status