Posted on 06/21/2018 7:58:37 AM PDT by Reno89519
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says states can force online shoppers to pay sales tax.
The 5-4 ruling Thursday is a win for states, who said they were losing out on billions of dollars annually under two decades-old Supreme Court decisions that impacted online sales tax collection.
The high court ruled Thursday to overturn those decisions.
snip
“Each year the physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States. These critiques underscore that the physical presence rule, both as first formulated and as applied today, is an incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause,” he wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
It is a “non-event” for big business like Amazon and walmart, but it screws over every mom and pop online shop that now has to report taxes in up to 50 states. Compliance will be costly and time consuming, and hurt the little guy. Note that amazon wasn’t fighting this because they know it will end up helping them by driving competition out of business.
No arrest.
The state will send you a notice telling you what a bad boy you’ve been, along with a fine.
No action on your part can ultimately lead to the state actually performing a garnishment on your bank account. I’ve read news stories in the past of NY and CA doing this.
” basis for national concealed carry.”
Being forced to recognize a gay marriage license from another state was actually the best argument for that.
If it came to that Amazon would lose its monopoly.
“odd mix”
That’s because most folks don’t really know much about how taxes work across state lines. Only business owners and accountants do.
They don’t comprehend the can of worms they’ve opened here. This judgement was actually the purview of congress.
Think of it this way, they have just rendered null and void state laws indicating you must report online purchases to your home state, since the retailer must now collect it.
Or did they? If you buy something and the seller reports it, will the state then come after you for not reporting it? I wouldn’t be surprised....
“stores collect”
Great point! One of the many reasons this should’ve been handled by congress, not the court. They’ve legislated from the bench here.
This reminds me of a visit I had one day to the accounting department of a very large corporation.
In those days they had file cabinets, and in this case the file cabinets went down the wall for as far as you can see.
What was in the filing cabinets?
The state and local laws governing sales taxes.
I kid you not...
Tax is usually levied at point of sale.
There are local (city, county) taxes as well as state sales taxes in some jurisdictions.
Total sales tax jurisdictions in the country? About 9,000.
“’Each year the physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic reality and results in significant revenue losses to the States. These critiques underscore that the physical presence rule, both as first formulated and as applied today, is an incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause,’ he wrote.”
That’d be for congress to decide bubba. Legislating from the bench.”
I agree with both conclusions.
The decision seems to read that the SCOTUS creation of the physical presence rule is the problem. SCOTUS created it, they rightly destroyed it. So too, they and you recognize that CONGRESS has the controlling power on this issue.
What the court is proclaiming is “We were wrong to create this double standard of taxation, and we now turn it back to the states and congress, were it rightly belongs. It is a political question, not something for the court.”
That would presumably be unconstitutional.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.U.S. Const., Art.1, Sec. 9, Cl. 5.
As a small business owner who's business is 99% found and executed online, I cannot do this. I might as well close now. I'm immediately contemplating a disclaimer of some sort: "We are a Nevada based business wherein services are not taxed. If you live in a city, county, or state that requires services like you are purchasing from us to be taxed, please self-report it. If necessary, calculate and pay that extra amount to us and we will pass it along." Not perfect, probably not good enough. I'm no lawyer or accountant and don't have one qualified to address tax laws across the country. What a mess.
I agree.
A state’s own tax on its own sales - not a genuine constitutionally-recognized federal issue.
A state’s tax on another state’s exports - a federal issue and unconstitutional (Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 5).
Used to be you had to have a physical presence. They consider internet to be a virtual presence. Catalog sales by mail go back over 150 years. This means that was always wrong or a bad decision
“stare decisis” unless there is a pile-o-cash in the mix”
When a politician stares at a pile of cash and decides it belongs to them.
On the surface, my first thought was that Sotomayor and Kagan buy online and don’t like paying tax. It is a conflict as they are liberal and like the benefits of redistributing the wealth. Well, this obviously doesn’t line up well from a liberal and conservative perspectives. And, as I wrote, I don’t think any of the justices have had a real job (in a for-profit company), especially a small company, nor their own company. All of these would give them different perspective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.