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 ...
You both make really good points.
I suspect most states laws immediately cover. It is now a matter or enforcing compliance. I don’t see any state passing a law to say that out-of-state businesses are not subject to in-state taxing. No way, sorry. Do you see any state doing that? Would you as a taxpayer and in-state business owner agree to the state waiving taxes on your out-of-state competitor?
Yes I would. Politics of envy is a lose-lose game.
Thanks
purchaser’s (destination) location.
If you don’t sell more than $100k of services in any single state, then it is unlikely that state will ask for taxation. They could but probably be shot down.
Large $ accounting systems already have that. The real problem though is that generally each state requires that a quarterly sales tax return be filed. Automate that.
... and there is nothing more important than bleeding the serfs.
South Dakota may not require a business that has no physical presence in the State to collect its sales tax. Consumer compliance rates are notoriously low, however, and it is estimated that Bellas Hess and Quill cause South Dakota to lose be- tween $48 and $58 million annually.
Indeed the compliance rate for these taxes is extremely low. Perhaps it's because the people themselves think these taxes are excessive and arbitrary?
Bad and bad
Exactly true. Another exception is when they find they have a chance to further erode our rights.
That's a single checkbox to click for Ebay sellers. For non-Ebay there are numerous tax calculators online starting at $25 per year for up to 200 calculations.
Now it becomes significant revenue losses to the citizens
Generally the purchasor has the obligation to report out-of-state purchases and pay the use tax. The new ruling means the seller has some obligation, but only with more than $100k of sales for S. Dakota (other states may create lower thresholds). I don’t think it is something you need to worry about unless you are a big provider.
Exactly. Whenever I hear someone whining about the 'unfairness' of not taxing internet sales, they never seem to factor in shipping or time. ... and anyone who believes there is such a thing as "free shipping" is an absolute moron who shouldn't be allowed to breed.
So it’s not a nightmare at all, logistically.
I have to confess that I’ve had a problem with the fact that people living in a sales tax state could buy tons of stuff mail order and not pay sales tax, even when it benefits me.
Looks like the court found a way to rectify it.
As a former programmer, I think it would be easy enough for even mom-and-pop sellers to track the tax they hold back for each state with a relatively simple program.
That $100K is South Dakota threshold. All states have laws that says taxes are paid on the first cent, on every dollar. Most laws, I suspect, don’t mention in- or out-of-state. They just couldn’t enforce against out-of-state until now. With today’s ruling, those tax laws apply to everyone and I doubt few states need to change their laws to make that point. That means, every dollar is taxable.
But the following is a STATE tax issue.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress. StateU.S. Const., Art. I Sec. 10, Cl. 2.
If Congress has not passed a laws regarding internet taxation between states, SCOTUS is on shaky ground.
Not only that, the SCOTUS decision even if constitutional, only applies to the parties of the case and any other case with the same questions of laws and fact. Congress and ONLY Congress, not SCOTUS, is authorized by the Constitution to make national law.
And it is not just figuring out the tax rules in around 10,000 jurisdictions, then collecting. Now I have to to file returns. Many states require I register as a foreign corporation to do that. Ah, that is even more complication. All those filings, monthly, quarterly, and annual reports.
Hiring a developer to write code is the easy part. Which is why I don't pay developers much.
Why not? I can buy something from a local retailer. I can buy something from the internet. The local retailer is forced to collect the local sales tax. The internet retailer is not. How is this a level playing field?
But the bottom line cost uncertainty is very real. If you want to be very cautious you can spend $100 a year for 1100 transactions, collect the tax, keep that money in an account, and keep a spreadsheet by state. But if I were in your position I wouldn't bother for now.
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.