Posted on 06/25/2006 8:10:40 PM PDT by SheLion
But if the item is there and no questions by H&R Block rep, I would expect them to live up to their guarantee.
It IS part of the individual form, they just didn't ask the question.
And if we didn't have someone like you to bring the question to light I doubt if anyone would have a clue. (Props to you)
I suggested you look up the law in those states that manufacture tobacco and the consequent taxing methods.
I told you South Carolina doesn't affix a tax stamp, thus, you won't see a tax stamp on SC tobacco sold to distributors in other states.
You refuse to do the work to gain some understanding of the issue.
Go away.
Asserting that it's criminal activity and arguing from there could be described as "camouflaged manipulation."
Your balance sheet is fatally flawed, your assets (slavish devotion to the state, for one) are wrongly defined.
The states are pretty clear about that line. If there is no entry (like a zero) there is no filing. Further by filling out the line you are essentially being considered to be filing a use tax return along with the individual tax return.
HR block's defense would, like I said before, be twofold. First, the guarantee doesn't cover use tax. Second, the information was omitted by the client and therefore they are not responsible.
So the purchaser get's scr*wed both ways and the vendor gets a pass.
Oh yes, that's right, a business might have the money to hire, and retain, a lawyer.
One cannot be ethical and illegal.
My dictionary has this for a definition of ethical.
Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.
Doesn't say anything about legality.
I would never encourage or assist another to break a law even if I thought it should be broken or if I myself break it in protest.
I truly do not understand your mindset, Ray.
You seem to think that government can do no wrong that it can be called on.
I'm sorry if that causes you any confusion or angst. I'm sure it doesn't.
If you want to equate smokers engaged in tax evasion as some sort of patriots, you are dead wrong unless these people made public there stands.
And if you want to equate government engaged in demonizing a person for indulging in a legal activity, while at the same time taking their money through extortion (you said it yourself), as being ethical or right, you are dead IN the wrong.
We are a nation of laws.
Once again we have hit that mindset. Government can do nothing to be called on.
Your rationalizing again.
I'm using YOUR words. something to the effect of if they have a bigger gun I guess it's legal. In my mind that equates to might makes right. What does it equate to in your mind?
So, the perpetrators of the Boston tea party were patriots?
Even though they committed various and sundry crimes, while disguising themselves, and destroyed personal property?
Be consistent, Ray.
Anything more will have to wait. I have a 1 1/2 hour drive ahead of me to get home.
what else is bought on internet and not taxed. remember it is not our money but the pols
I don't refuse to do the research I just didn't think a reasonable person needed it spelled out. Listen, I don't know how many ways I can tell you you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG when trying to invoke the defense of cheating to double taxation. There simply is no double taxation.
You raise the red herring that SC has no stamps. Well that still doesn't mean their is a double tax on out-of-state sales.
Let's start with SC tax form. http://www.sctax.org/NR/rdonlyres/1704682B-0788-44F0-AF8F-950DF205C773/0/L922.PDF
Note that Line 4 allows for exemptions. One of these exemptions is Schedule C-out-of-state sales.
Next lets look at the law itself, note how it applies to "untaxed cigarettes for sale or distribution in this State" and further the last sentence "and report and pay tax as provided in this section on sales of cigarettes sold to locations in this State"
SECTION 12-21-735. Payment of license tax on cigarettes by reporting method rather than by tax stamps. [SC ST SEC 12-21-735]
Each person or distributor of cigarettes taxable under this article, first receiving untaxed cigarettes for sale or distribution in this State, is subject to the tax imposed in Section 12-21-620. Each distributor required to pay the tax shall make a report to the department, in the form the department prescribes, of all cigarettes sold or disposed of in this State, and pay taxes due thereon not later than the twentieth day of the month next succeeding the month of the sale or disposition. However, any person or distributor making shipments of cigarettes to retail locations in and out of this State shall apply to the department for a license which enables them to purchase cigarettes free of tax, and report and pay tax as provided in this section on sales of cigarettes sold to locations in this State.
Do you do your own taxes? You might be overpaying.
The purchaser gets screwed by paying the legal tax once?
Then do it publicly and be counted lest we see you as a common everyday ordinary tax cheat.
Asserting that it's criminal activity and arguing from there could be described as "camouflaged manipulation."
Tax evasion is criminal. How do you think they got Al Capone?
Your balance sheet is fatally flawed, your assets (slavish devotion to the state, for one) are wrongly defined.
You propose to others that it is right and patriotic to break a law and call me fatally flawed. If that is your moral compass then I glady accept your judgement.
How in blazes does Schedule C of the South Carolina tax code apply to Joe Schmoe from Iowa buying a carton of SC cigarettes over the internet in New York state? The distributor needs the schedule C but Joe sure doesn’t.
Now when Joe gets taxed in Iowa for SC cigarettes, which he paid taxes on to the distributor, which he bought in New York, he is getting double taxed. Once with the SC tax and again with an Iowa tax.
Now double taxing is not illegal, at least for socialists - see dividend tax and death tax - and it’s up to congress to correct instances where double taxing is apparent. Or they can not correct it.
However, the burden falls on the state, as overseen by congress, to assure that its taxing schemes do not harm interstate commerce. It’s not up to Joe Schmoe to determine if he’s being fairly taxed - or double taxed - via interstate commerce rules.
The states must also be certain that its taxing schemes are not excessive.
So we get into another (stupid) “USSC test.”
The test assures that states take only their fair share of an interstate transaction. The idea comes from the prohibition of multiple taxation by states (double taxing) along the line of commerce. It prevents states from overreaching with various tax schemes.
The tax must also be both internally and externally consistent. So the tax of state A must be consistent with other states’ taxes and not hinder interstate commerce. If the tax is too high as measured by other states - not externally consistent - the courts, or congress, can shoot that state tax down.
With the current scheme of excessive taxation of tobacco, and double taxing, interstate commerce is definetly under harm. However, I’d say the chances of our gutless weinerdog socialist congress stepping in to correct this mess is about zero.
If the states get away with this, watch out for other excessive tax schemes, such as buying a vehicle in state A with a 3% tax and being forced to pay another 7% in your home state.
And the “no tax stamp” bogeyman came out of your closet, not mine.
High Five, Joe!!!! You are to be commended! Thank you for keeping track!
Ray, what about tobacco products (Other than cigarettes).
It is the cigarettes that raise the issue of tax evasion because of the stamps.
Tobacco products don't get stamped.
You're a born bureaucrat, who wouldn't save a child from a burning building if there was a "Don't Walk on the Grass" sign between you and the burning building.
I concur. Well done Joe.
This lady will be glad to hear that.
Thank you, brother.
And I guess that's yet another problem.
The reverse of "tax cheats"/
People who pay Ray to guide them through the labyrinth of taxation.
Those people are "tax bite minimizers", not "cheats'.
I understand that taxes and forms seem very complex to some people so I've tried to go slow but apparently I haven't gone slow enough. You claim there is a double tax when Joe Shmoe purchases cigs from a an out-of-state vendor and his home state charges Joe a tax on the purchase. I expxlained that the vendor would not charge Joe a tax because Joe was taking delivery out of state and that sale would be exempt from tax and the vendor would not collect it. When the vendor in SC completes its report of sold cigs it would claim on Sch C the amount of cigs it sold to Joe Shmoe.
If the above is still above your head then I give up and just leave it at you are flat wrong when you say the tax is being paid twice.
Now when Joe gets taxed in Iowa for SC cigarettes, which he paid taxes on to the distributor, which he bought in New York, he is getting double taxed. Once with the SC tax and again with an Iowa tax.
This is the part you don't get. The distributor is not collecting a tax from Joe and NEITHER is the NY vendor. Both are selling out of state. I really don't know what else I can do to demonstrate that.. I have given you the law that shows the distributor isn't taxed by the state of SC. i have given you the tax forms that show the same thing. Either you willfully ignore the facts or are unable to grasp them. I am sorry but on this point I don't know what else to do to show you are wrong except what beyond the statute of SC or the tax forms of SC do you need as proof that the vendor selling cigarettes out of state is not being taxed? I personally don't know what else evidence you want because beyond the actual statute there isn't much else proof anyone reasonable would need. (You really shouldn't be doing your own taxes)
Now double taxing is not illegal, at least for socialists - see dividend tax and death tax - and it’s up to congress to correct instances where double taxing is apparent. Or they can not correct it.
Double taxes by states ends up being unconstitutional in most situations because of the commerce clause but not because the tax is levied twice. But because of the application of SC rulings that end up arriving at that point. That is basic interstate law. Again you really shouldn't be advising on taxes if you are not aware of basic principals.
However, the burden falls on the state, as overseen by congress, to assure that its taxing schemes do not harm interstate commerce. It’s not up to Joe Schmoe to determine if he’s being fairly taxed - or double taxed - via interstate commerce rules.
Joe is obligated to know the laws and pay his tax. The sales, use and excise taxes are placed on the final purchaser who if taxed twice would have to seek a remedy.
The states must also be certain that its taxing schemes are not excessive.
There is no law stopping them except the law of supply and demand. In that smokers have an inelastic demand (meaning they do not reduce consumption much when the price goes up) this natural law has little effect and makes the product easy to tax.
So we get into another (stupid) “USSC test.” The test assures that states take only their fair share of an interstate transaction. The idea comes from the prohibition of multiple taxation by states (double taxing) along the line of commerce. It prevents states from overreaching with various tax schemes.
The reason double taxing is unconstitutional has nothing to do with overreaching tax schemes. It has to do with treating nonresidents the same as residents and requiring the state to have some services to the taxpayer. But you are making my original argument, that there is no double tax on the sale of cigs on out of state sales. The seller shipping to a nonresident is exempt from the tax. I'm glad you at least recognize its unconstitutional, maybe we are making progress.
The tax must also be both internally and externally consistent. So the tax of state A must be consistent with other states’ taxes and not hinder interstate commerce. If the tax is too high as measured by other states - not externally consistent - the courts, or congress, can shoot that state tax down.,
I really don't know what you are getting at. The constitutional test in short hand is as follows: THE FOUR-PRONG TEST OF COMPLETE AUTO TRANSIT v BRADY (1977):
1. Does the activity taxed have a substantial nexus with the taxing state?
2. Is the tax fairly apportioned?
3. Does the tax discriminate against interstate commerce?
4. Is the tax fairly related to services the state provides the taxpayer?
In any case, you are making my argument. The sales to out of state residents are not taxed. This leaves the home state to tax its own residents who are not effected by interstate commerce clause.
With the current scheme of excessive taxation of tobacco, and double taxing, interstate commerce is definetly under harm. However, I’d say the chances of our gutless weinerdog socialist congress stepping in to correct this mess is about zero.
In the case we are discussing the interstate commerce clause is what stops the tax from being applied twice but has nothing to do with the home state taxing its resident.
If the states get away with this, watch out for other excessive tax schemes, such as buying a vehicle in state A with a 3% tax and being forced to pay another 7% in your home state.
Great extrapolation, however you have yet to make the original case on which you extrapolate.
And the “no tax stamp” bogeyman came out of your closet, not mine.
I used it as shorthand to explain that shipments out of state are not taxed by the state they are shipped from so that I could prove to you your error about double taxation. However at this point I see its impossible for you to follow the relevant law so I must simply give up on you.
Tax schemes for sales, use and excise tax are fairly consistent across the states as well as across products. The use of a tax stamp is merely a device to assist in applying and enforcing the law. Unstamped items are generally handled the same with the same laws. Every state has their own twists but certain generalities can be made and in general out of state shipments are not subject to the tax of the vendor, while the resident receiving the goods is taxed by his home state.
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.