Principled: "No - consumers are liable for the tax. Those who collect tax are the ones who remit to the state."
OK, here is the definitive answer. Lets look through the entire bill to understand:
Point #1. First the Fair Tax Act of 2005 Bill Clearly says the PURCHASER is LIABLE for the tax unless he has a Receipt, let's read:
`SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX .
(d) Liability for Tax -
Do you disagree???? I should hope not.
Point #2. Then we have Section 103 which relates only to Retailers.
`SEC. 103. RULES RELATING TO COLLECTION AND REMITTANCE OF TAX .
`(a) Liability for Collection and Remittance of the Tax - Except as provided otherwise by this section, any tax imposed by this subtitle shall be collected and remitted by the seller of taxable property or services (including financial intermediation services).
Section 103 is clearly talking about taxes where a receipt was given by a Retailer. In this case, the Retailer is solely liable for the tax consistent with what Section 101 says.
Point #3. Next we have Section 501 which covers BOTH cases, section 103 Purchases and Purchases where the Purchaser is liable and BOTH are required to REMIT the tax!
`(a) Tax Reports and Filing Dates-
`(1) IN GENERAL- On or before the 15th day of each month, each person who is--
`(A) liable to collect and remit the tax imposed by this subtitle by reason of section 103(a), or
`(B) liable to pay tax imposed by this subtitle which is not collected pursuant to section 103(a),
shall submit to the appropriate sales tax administering authority (in a form prescribed by the Secretary) a report relating to the previous calendar month.
Paragrah A covers Section 103 taxes with a Purchaser Receipt. Paragraph B cover other Purchases where there is no receipt. This is where it makes the INDIVIDUAL PURCHASER, not the RETAILER, liable to pay and SUBMIT the sales tax. Now are you going to agree with me that your bill clearly makes the Purchaser liable to remit the tax? Now that we have established the FACT the a Purchaser is LIABLE unless he has a receipt and must REMIT the tax to the state, that means INDIVIDUALS are subject to all the same audits, requirements to produce records, liens, and penalities. This is no different then the current IRS. So, KEEP your personal reciepts, you may need them! In the context of the ENTIRE bill, my understanding is correct.
`SEC. 101. IMPOSITION OF SALES TAX .(d) Liability for Tax -
* `(1) IN GENERAL- The person using or consuming taxable property or services in the United States is liable for the tax imposed by this section, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection.
* `(2) EXCEPTION WHERE TAX PAID TO SELLER- A person using or consuming a taxable property or service in the United States is not liable for the tax imposed by this section if the person pays the tax to a person selling the taxable property or service and receives from such person a purchaser's receipt within the meaning of section 510.
Do you disagree???? I should hope not.
Actually, your interpretation is severly flawed. You selectively highlight certain text, but completely gloss over the fact that the two are not related. Clause 2 specifically says the consumer is no longer liable for the tax once it is paid to the seller. This makes the rest of your screed pointless.
So, KEEP your personal reciepts, you may need them! In the context of the ENTIRE bill, my understanding is correct.
For large ticket items your absolutely right, it certainly behooves one to keep their receipts to protect their purchases from numerous possible problems, not to mention warranty as well as tax considerations if you wish to sell them, don't you already?
However, as far as sales tax collection is concerned there must be a probable cause for the state tax authorities to even get to the point of inquiring about prior payment of tax under the provisions of presumption of innocence and lawful behaviour in the Principles of Interpretation as pointed out in #416.
Just as today state sales tax agencies are not running around rifling peoples pockets and shoeboxes for receipts even for that car you bought or sold last year, you won't find them doing so under the NRST. That is unless you start acting like alot like a business, then probable cause crops up and yep you better be able to account for those items that aren't obviously out of someone's garage sale, or last years dinged up widgets in the flea market.
Engage in retail sales, expect to be open for questions as to sales license or proof you already paid tax on it, thats the way it is in my state anyway.
read post 433 and comment.
`(b) TAX PAYMENTS DATE-`(1) GENERAL RULE- The tax imposed by this subtitle during any calendar month is due and shall be paid to the appropriate sales tax administering authority on or before the 15th day of the succeeding month. Both Federal tax imposed by this subtitle and confirming State sales tax (if any) shall be paid in 1 aggregate payment.
Then I saw this in the paper I posted last night:
Second, it entices states to be collecting apparatuses, by allowing them to keep one-quarter of 1 percent of the revenue collected if they choose to conform the state tax base to the federal base and administer the federal tax.
The federal base is a tax "of the gross payment" so here's what would have to happen to send an aggregate payment of both taxes being "of the gross payment"
Under their "cooperative agreement" and both tax bases being "of the gross payment" there would have to be a combined federal/state tax rate.
The federal rate ("23% of the gross payment" the first year) plus a state rate of say 6% "of the gross payment". Making a combined federal/state tax inclusive rate of 29% (of the gross payments).
29% tax inclusive in real sales tax terms would be a combined federal/state tax rate of 40.85% (29/71) tax exclusive.
It just keeps getting uglier.