Sorry Nightie, you're the one with the silly ideas. The report is clearly called out in the bill and I'll certainly let readers figure out what the requirement might be.The bill specifies three lines and then says the form shall include "other information reasonably required by the Secretary or the sales tax administering authority for the administration, collection, and remittance of the tax imposed by this subtitle." So the form could get very complicated. The fact that you think it could possibly be two lines shows you live in a different world than the rest of us.
Also your spin on Linder's testimony leaves out the fact that he ALSO said:You've wrongly accused me of doing it several time, but now we have an example of an out-of-context quote. If you take the last sentence out of context of his whole statement, it seems like it says what you claim. If you put it in the context of the complete statement, it says something different. This is the definition of an out-of-context quote. Here, again, is the entire statement which gives a completely different meaning to the last sentence."So they would not be taxed and we would not ask the Home Depot to make the decision whether or not to raise the tax from them. Any business-to-business transfer will not be taxed at all."This last part of the statement indicates that there will be no tax charged and not that tax will be charged and then rebated by tax credit. That conforms to the registration certificate method and the earlier part applies to the business conversion credit. And since that is how many stores operate now, I would expect that to be the normal method. It makes little sense to do the VAT-like invoice credit operation and also makes auditing more difficult.
"If a business went to Home Depot and bought some goods from Home Depot they would pay the tax at Home Depot which sells to both consumers and businesses. And they would keep their receipts and they'd use the value of those receipts as a credit against paying the tax in the future. So they would not be taxed and we would not ask the Home Depot to make the decision whether or not to raise the tax from them. Any business-to-business transfer will not be taxed at all."Rep. John Linder
Testimony before the Ways & Means Committee
July 28, 2005
WRONGLY accused you of OOC postings??? Nothing of the sort. I actually showed they were OOC and where and how they failed. I RIGHTLY pointed out your little trick.
Since you had already posted the Linder/HD snippet, I chose for now to work with that. And BTW I've asked you for a link to the testimony you posted this from as it does not appear to be on the W&MC website.
It seems to me that your spin is incorrect since (and I presume Linder would know this) Home Depot right now accepts registration certifications for sales-tax free sales of businesses and changing them by the FairTax bill would certainly not be something that Linder or anyone else would seek to do. There is no reason to since he registration certifications (aka, reseller certs, tax-free ticket , and other names) are widely used in many states for this purpoe amd are VERY simple.
For this reason it seems quite apparent that Linder was responding to indicate the alternate tax rebate/refund which, as I said, is intended more for conversions of taxable items from one use to another. That MIGHT be a way to handle things, but certainly not the simplest, most efficient, nor cheapest method and would only apply in certain situations.
As I've said, the normal, and expected, method would be the very simple resale number/form. You're merely trying to overcomplicate and obfuscate for your own purposes in attacking the FairTax. That's quite obvious as you are trying to assume away the simple method already widely used (and trying to "innocently" use Linders apparent words to do so).
Please priovide the link.
Oh, and BTW the word should be "jibe" and not "jive" (which is what you do).