Posted on 02/21/2009 12:26:05 PM PST by LuxMaker
Madison - Wisconsin will collect sales taxes on Internet downloads of music, games, books, ring tones and other video entertainment - a decision that angers some who will find the 5% tax added to their credit-card bills after Oct. 1.
">snip<"
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Buy your new stuff now until Oct 1.
Then live on craigslist from then on.
Obama’s fault
How will they know if it’s digital and you use a proxy and PayPal?
The address your credit card, debit card is registered to.
Yes, that I know, but you can open a PayPal account without one.
The last I looked at Paypal, you had to activate your paypal account, in order to use it, with a bank account number, or a credit/debit card.
Get an address in Oregon. They don’t charge sales tax there...
Time to set up Tor on your machine.
And which store does one go to locally to buy a download?
More stimulus for the economy, I see.
How about when the download is purchased from a business located in another state, they can’t require the tax be added then I don’t think.
I was born in Madison.
Sure glad I left in 1963.
It’s nice to know they will attempt to do this, but if a seller had nexus and the software, music, etc. was taxable before, then the new law is for show.
It was my understanding the Wisconsin taxed software as tangible personal property. They may be adding music, etc. as a clarification.
If a seller doesn’t have nexus, and most sellers won’t, then Wisconsin lacks the ability to enforce its statutes against the seller. They may, however, go after use tax from every person who purchased software. Good luck with that, since they haven’t been able to enforce it on sales of standard tpp.
A lot of states don’t like the fact that they can’t force remote sellers with no nexus to collect tax on sales into their state. However, the Supremes have been ruling for over a century on this issue. If a seller doesn’t have a connection with the state, the state can’t demand records, audit, or place a collection requirement on the seller.
This was actually what the Commerce Clause was *supposed* to do: ensure interstate commerce isn’t burdened by state and local tax laws. Unfortunately, the Supremes have allowed so many abuses, even the legitimate use of it becomes suspect.
I wouldn’t worry about it. It’s saber rattling from a state on a dying cause.
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.