Posted on 02/21/2005 6:46:21 AM PST by Zon
Hundreds of Michigan residents are getting a big surprise this tax season--hefty tax bills for cigarettes they bought online over the past four years.
The state sent the bills to 553 residents last week after subpoenaing 13 online tobacco shops for names of Michigan customers and their order histories, a Michigan Treasury Department spokesman Caleb Buhs said on Friday. The tax bills are based on information from just one store, and the state expects to collect more names from the others.
Collectively, the people receiving this first round of bills owe the state $1.4 million, an average of $2,500 per person, Buhs said. They have until March 14 to pay.
"At its most fundamental level, this is an issue of tax fairness," State Treasurer Jay B. Rising said in a statement. "It is only right that out-of-state vendors, who conduct business only online and at arms length, follow the letter of the law. These taxes are collected by brick-and-mortar businesses in Michigan, and Internet vendors should not be allowed to skirt their responsibility."
Michigan, which levies a $2 tax on every pack of cigarettes, collected $993 million in tobacco taxes last year, Buhs said.
eSmokes, one of the top tobacco sellers on the Web, cancelled thousands of orders to Michigan customers after hearing about the tax crackdown, an eSmokes representative said. The representative would not discuss whether the store has been subpoenaed by Michigan or any other state.
Michigan did not disclose which companies it has subpoenaed.
Other states, including California, Washington and Wisconsin, have launched efforts to collect tobacco taxes from residents who dodged them online. A 2002 report (click for .pdf) from the U.S. General Accounting Office said most states tax the sale of cigarettes, and that online sales have cost them millions of dollars in lost revenue.
Internet shops that don't tell states about tobacco purchases by people other than licensed distributors are flouting a federal law known as the Jenkins Act. Laws that exempt online retailers from collecting sales taxes do not apply to tobacco excise taxes, the GAO report said.
Changing the subject to avoid the truth ? \
Not at all. I'm encouraging you to be honorable and prove your claim that you made a post that destroyed my argument/questions. You continue to obfuscate to avoid admitting that you can't prove/backup your claim.
Both are wrong.
When, they came for the simple returns, I didn't speak up because I had a complicated return...
We could get rid of your function in society entirely (I presume you're a CPA, from your handle), and increase tax revenues at the same time.
raycpa, haven't you been monitoring the increasing demands made by your state government "revenooers"? Start keeping track of it, like me. You'll soon horrify yourself.
So, you think abortion laws are legitimate methods of ridding a person of the inconvenience of a baby?
Personally, I think abortion laws are bogus. But that's just me.
You are correct. I can only destroy something that existed.
You are going to find it very difficult to bitch-slap us inveterate tax avoiders back into line after we have witnessed Hillary taking down an ILLEGAL $100,000 bribe from the Tyson folks through her bungling Cattlegate mess and, at the same time, reducing the Clinton income tax burden by claiming the undies that had touched her Governor husband's wonderful hind-end had risen in value to $20 per pair. Wow, such brazen disregard for their own responsibilty as citizens, and no consequences, whatsoever. I also remember back in the early seventies when Richard Nixon's federal tax liability of a little over $500 for the prior year made the papers. I, for one, am damned sick of politicians, bureaucrats, and government employees living high on the hog, constantly squeezing the sheep for more money, while seemingly ducking responsibilty for their own actions. Anymore, I simply don't care who screws the government out of taxes. It'll be better spent by the private citizen, even if he (or she) blows it on whiskey and hookers, in my opinion.
Leave it blank. Writing "none" probably opens you to perjury if they dig...
You don't think putting your fellow citizens in physical danger is worse than avoiding revenue enhancements to the state?
His (her?) response pretty much shows who he is loyal to - the State, not the individual.
All laws must be obeyed (said with robotic movement and brainwashed blank look.)
LOL. Many states as well as the Federal government do taxes for free. Providing this service is a cheap way to help taxpayers comply. Its really no different that a town that sends property tax bills to its residents.
We could get rid of your function in society entirely (I presume you're a CPA, from your handle), and increase tax revenues at the same time.
As long as there are taxes, I will have employment helping people with them and this is true if we have a tax on incomes or a tax on purchases.
raycpa, haven't you been monitoring the increasing demands made by your state government "revenooers"? Start keeping track of it, like me. You'll soon horrify yourself.
I'm beyond shocked.
You've obviously never seen my "one rep" argument before.
I'm surprised at you, rc. Much of the purpose of this forum is to resist and turn back government over-reaching.
Oh, so bogus means legal. Okay. I agree.
Didn't Canada actually lower their cigarette taxes some because of the huge and growing black market?
For which she paid taxes on.
Using legal means from what I observe.
You are correct. I can only destroy something that existed.
You continue to obfuscate. The argument/questions do exist. Here are the pertinent posts that do exist as well as your claim that you destroyed my argument/questions.
Here they are again to prove that they exist.
Raycpa wrote: We either have laws we follow or we have anarchy.12
Zon wrote: How is it that people increasingly prospered as did society prior to last years new laws or new laws created decades ago? How is it that anarchy didn't ensue over the last hundred years -- save for prohibition? How is it that we don't have anarchy right now without next year's new laws or new laws yet to be created five, ten or fifteen years in the future?25
Raycpa wrote: I assume you circuling back to arguments that I previously destroyed 73
Zon wrote: Please repost your response that you claim you destroyed my arguments.82
You continue to obfuscate to avoid admitting that you can't prove/backup your claim. 101
About 150 years ago, we started losing "common law," the centuries-long process of applying Biblical standards to everyday life. The replacement was "statute law," the law of, by, and for the lawyers. The torah contains around 635 case law applications of the ten commandments. The "Federal Register" publishes a phone book's worth of new "laws" every day.
Totalitarian regimes normally enact so many laws that everyone is always guilty of something.
But, as long as we have the jury system, that neighborhood theocracy of men who place their hands on the Bible, and swear and oath to the God of the Bible, to uphold biblical standards of justice, all is not lost. Jury nullification is the solution to statist arrogance.
reducing the Clinton income tax burden by claiming the undies that had touched her Governor husband's wonderful hind-end had risen in value to $20 per pair.
Yet Clintons forgot to a to take a $50,000 deduction on Whitewater property. Remembered to deduct $20 used underwear but forgot to deduct $50,000 for real-estate.
Darlin', my family has been here for almost 400 years, and I understand our government just fine.
Are we governmental entities? Of course not, we're people!
The common definition of person;
Webster's New World Dictionary (Third College Ed.) (1988)
person
1. a human being, esp. as distinguished from a thing or lower animal; individual man, woman or child.
Legal definition:
Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed.) (1999)
person
1. A human being.
2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being.
The common definition and the first legal definition are the same. The second legal definition however, is used only if a person intentionally, with knowledge and consent, uses the law of contracts to create an artificial entity in order to start a business and/or protect his assets. Any artificial entity purposely created never has the exact same name as a living person
Because true law says exactly what it means and means exactly what it says, ‘person’ is defined even further.
Black's Law Dictionary ;
"natural person" : A human being, as distinguished from an artificial person created by law.
"artificial person" : An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being.
Nolo also had an interesting definition:
natural person
A living, breathing human being, as opposed to a legal entity such as a corporation. Different rules and protections apply to natural persons and corporations, such as the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which applies only to natural persons. (Emphasis mine)
Anyone with half a brain knows a corporation is artificial, and can’t have ‘rights’ like a person! So if we’re natural persons, it makes sense we should follow natural law.
(from law.com)
natural law
n. 1) standards of conduct derived from traditional moral principles (first mentioned by Roman jurists in the first century A.D.) and/or God's law and will. The biblical Ten Commandments, such as "thou shall not kill," are often included in those principles. Natural law assumes that all people believe in the same Judeo-Christian God and thus share an understanding of natural law premises.
2) the body of laws derived from nature and reason, embodied in the Declaration of Independence assertion that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
3) the opposite of "positive law," which is created by mankind through the state.
Political and legal subdivision operate under POSITIVE law, and have no authority to define any word, including those like 'person' or 'crime'.
It is 'ultra vires' or beyond governments power or authority, and therefore null and void upon it's inception.
Well, d'uh -- MA. Wasn't there two years a while back when the MA tax forms had a line for income obtained illegally? I think they said it wouldn't be used for prosecution.
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.