Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CharlesWayneCT
Of course, in reality nobody pays this tax, even though the law says you need to, and the state can throw you in jail. In 2008, only 285 people filed the forms.

But the states are prohibited from collecting a sales tax on interstate sales because it's unconstitutional. So they come up with the idea of a "use tax" which is the exact same percentage as the sales tax and only "due" on items where sales tax hasn't been collected.

So sales tax is supposedly unconstitutional, but the stat[ist]s come up with something that passes the duck test for being a sales tax, and the Enablers-in-Cheif (courts) just go ahead and allow them to act on that fiction because they managed to find a different word to call it. (And here I thought judges worked for US!)

13 posted on 03/12/2010 12:14:30 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: Still Thinking
But the states are prohibited from collecting a sales tax on interstate sales because it's unconstitutional.

That's not correct. Sales tax is collected from citizens of the state, by the state, and are perfectly constitutional, no matter where an item might have been purchased.

What is unconstitutional is for a state to attempt to force a company with no business in a state to collect sales tax for purchases being shipped to people in the state. And it's not "unconstitutional" in the sense that the constitution prohibits it outright, but in that only the federal government can regulate interstate commerce.

This prohibition is based on a 1992 Supreme Court ruling. It would take an act of congress to change.

However, the courts ruled that if a company does business in a state, the state can force the company to collect sales tax, even if the particular purchase is made from an out-of-state outlet of the store.

There is a distinction between "sales" and "use" taxes, because of the nomenclature, but I don't believe it is a constitutional issue. Practically speaking it's not a distinction -- the "sales tax" which sounds like it's based on a company selling, can be waived if the person buying (the USER) is buying for a tax-exempt purpose. So it acts like a "use" tax, a tax based on the user.

22 posted on 03/12/2010 12:44:46 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: Still Thinking
but the stat[ist]s come up with something that passes the duck test for being a sales tax, and the Enablers-in-Cheif (courts) just go ahead and allow them to act on that fiction because they managed to find a different word to call it

Not to belabor the point, but is it wrong for states to collect sales taxes? If so, shouldn't the fight be against all sales taxes? If not, why is it wrong to want to collect taxes from the people who buy things regardless of where they buy them?

The issue has always existed, but since most states had some sales tax, it wasn't all that worthwhile to go from one state to another to buy things, since you ended up paying that state's sales tax. But people in Virginia would go to North Carolina and buy furniture without sales taxes. So Virginia got North Carolina to agree that all furniture purchases would be reported to Virginia, so they send out special reminders that the "use tax" is due.

Which is probably the 285 people who paid their "Use Tax".

23 posted on 03/12/2010 12:48:14 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson