Under the FairTax, the act of buying the taxable item and receiving the receipt constitutes compliance in and of itself and beyond that no "evasion" is possible since the tax law would have been completely complied with at the point of purchase.Really? The retailer couldn't simply not remit the tax?
Would the state worker put on his federal tax collection hat and go knock down the door of the consumer and demand to see a receipt?
"Really? The retailer couldn't simply not remit the tax?Certainly the retailer could "simply not remit the tax" but then he'd have a great amount of backing and filling and covering up to do at audit time since he's agreed in writing to collect the tax. I doubt that the large retailers who handle something like 86% of retail sales will get involved in that to destroy their business.Would the state worker put on his federal tax collection hat and go knock down the door of the consumer and demand to see a receipt?"
Of the smaller retailers left, that means there are more audit resources devoted to them. And states have a lot of ways to "audit through" a business to see if sales are reasonably correct and the paperwork exists. Even these smaller retailers have little reason to not handle the tax amounts correctly since it is the taxpayer (not the retailer) paying the tax and the retailer is paid to do this. the retailer would gain nothing but trouble should he take it upon himself to "help the customer" (for some unknown reason) since he, the retailer, is still liable for the tax and would gain nothing by doing so.
There's no reason for "demanding to see a receipt" from the consumer since he has already complied with the tax law by buying the item and receiving the receipt. It's the seller who would be the focus point - not for "evasion" since there would have been none - but for theft of the government's tax money the merchant contractually agreed to collect and forward. That's not "evasion" but "theft".