Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Smokers asked to cough up taxes for Web buys
CNET News.com ^ | February 18, 2005, 3:31 PM PST | Alorie Gilbert

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. 


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Front Page News; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: addiction; cigarette; ecommerce; funnyheadline; michigan; pufflist; smokers; tax; taxes; tobacco; tobbaco; wackyheadine; wackyheadline; wasteofmoney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-300 next last
To: Raycpa
I really don't recall any suggestions other than orderly protests.

I guess you weren't here for the copyright thing, then, hey?

Proof positive that you ignore the merits of an argument if it isn't YOUR ox being gored.

You just dealt yourself out of the game, rc.

You may be a sharp bean-counter, but I won't look to you for advice on how to deal with a broken system. I'd be willing to bet that you don't really have a problem with the current U.S. tax code, either. Do you?

261 posted on 02/21/2005 2:56:44 PM PST by an amused spectator (your property: guilty until proven innocent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
No, the argument is that a segment of society is being singled out, after being cheerfully demonized by people such as you, for an onerous tax burden.

I propose we place a 100% tax on the services of a CPA and watch Turbo Tax sales skyrocket.

262 posted on 02/21/2005 2:59:27 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
The founders had no tax when they won independence ?

If you'd like, we can explore the history of the U.S. tax code, and various state tax codes here on this thread. I'm working on such a project for my state at the present time.

One factoid that I discovered was that my state only implemented an income tax during the mid-1960s. I started asking people, and most of them thought it had been around forever. Now, the state can't live without it.

I guess there must have waste and desolation before that...

263 posted on 02/21/2005 3:01:58 PM PST by an amused spectator (your property: guilty until proven innocent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
No, its a true statement. Each smoker is free to decide the amount of tax he is willing to pay.

2005: "No, its a true statement. Each smoker is free to decide the amount of tax he is willing to pay."

2010: "No, its a true statement. Each drinker is free to decide the amount of tax he is willing to pay."

2015: "No, its a true statement. Each over-eater is free to decide the amount of tax he is willing to pay."

and on and on and on and on....

264 posted on 02/21/2005 3:04:32 PM PST by an amused spectator (your property: guilty until proven innocent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
I guess you weren't here for the copyright thing, then, hey?

Of course, but Jim settled. Does he or me think it was illegal to this day ? I'd be willing to bet that you don't really have a problem with the current U.S. tax code, either. Do you?

There are lots of problems what specifically ? The fact its based on income and not purchases ? The rate ?

265 posted on 02/21/2005 3:05:05 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
How is a segment singled out when the tax applies to all of us ? I didn't know anyone was exempt. If I'm exempt, I'll buy theme for you.
266 posted on 02/21/2005 3:06:37 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator

Your state had no tax before 1960 ?


267 posted on 02/21/2005 3:07:29 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator

2005 and 2010 are true. 2015 is not. Eating is not optional.


268 posted on 02/21/2005 3:08:24 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
How very disingenuous and characteristic of you.

What do you think of my proposal to tax the services of a CPA at a 100% rate?

269 posted on 02/21/2005 3:09:35 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
What do you think of my proposal to tax the services of a CPA at a 100% rate?

I'd quit.

270 posted on 02/21/2005 3:13:42 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Sure you would.


271 posted on 02/21/2005 3:14:53 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
So you'd give in that easily?

Because the government is always right?

Why not "petition your representative" for redress?

You know, like you advise smokers to do.

272 posted on 02/21/2005 3:17:23 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge

LOL!!!!!!!!!

That's why I'm only asking questions, and not making a blanket statement until I get an answer.

I figure the company with this policy is the best place to ask. And they always call to let you know when your order is going to be shipped, I figure I'll get a call tomorrow or the next day. I have no clue as to why they don't deliver in Delaware, and couldn't find anything in a quick search of the DE state website.


273 posted on 02/21/2005 3:24:10 PM PST by Gabz (Anti-smoker gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business..............SWAT'EM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
There are lots of problems what specifically ? The fact its based on income and not purchases ? The rate ?

Oh, good. I was beginning to think you were one of those "it's the best we've got, so we'll have to live with it" types. There's even some of those here...

274 posted on 02/21/2005 4:06:05 PM PST by an amused spectator (your property: guilty until proven innocent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Of course, but Jim settled. Does he or me think it was illegal to this day ?

It's the law, rc. If Jim wants it changed, he'll just have to outbid Disney in Gucci Gulch... ;-)

275 posted on 02/21/2005 4:08:42 PM PST by an amused spectator (your property: guilty until proven innocent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Your state had no tax before 1960 ?

I repeat - one factoid that I discovered was that my state only implemented an income tax during the mid-1960s.

I'm finding myself in favor of sunsetting ANY tax legislation after 5 years or so. Let the thieves come in front of the people they're representing and beg for a re-authorization. None of this "Well, your great-great-great grandfather OKed this back during the War, so quit mouthing off about it. If you REALLY wanted this changed, you could talk to your Representative, you know..."

276 posted on 02/21/2005 4:16:26 PM PST by an amused spectator (your property: guilty until proven innocent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator

Addiction to taxes is second only to addiction to nicotine.


277 posted on 02/21/2005 4:26:57 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Addiction to taxes is second only to addiction to nicotine.

I'd reverse the order, myself. I quit smoking years ago. It was pretty easy - I just told myself that I loved the habit, but I wasn't going to do it anymore.

Imagine a legislator or a judge trying that with taxes. :-)

278 posted on 02/21/2005 4:36:28 PM PST by an amused spectator (your property: guilty until proven innocent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
I repeat - one factoid that I discovered was that my state only implemented an income tax during the mid-1960s.

The state income tax wouldn't be practical without the Federal income tax and today's Federal income tax wouldn't be practical without the computer. FWIW.

279 posted on 02/21/2005 4:38:52 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Believe it or not, I'm not really against taxes.

I'm just against our lords and masters in the legislature ramming taxes, fees and garnishments down our throats, considering the history of the country.

I view the legislature like we on FR view the MSM. Where's our input, baby?

I've been noticing a trend in our state lately. The state revenooers pass some fee-grabbing scheme, and you only get to start discussing the bad points AFTER they sign it into law in the dead of night.

280 posted on 02/21/2005 4:51:14 PM PST by an amused spectator (your property: guilty until proven innocent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-300 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson