[lucysmom]

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.

The retailer has agreed voluntarily?

The study found the average dollar loss per employee theft case to be $1,341.02 compared to $207.18 for the average shoplifting incident.

http://www.crimedoctor.com/employee_theft.htm

Now, prove how the loss occurred.

Of the smaller retailers left, that means there are more audit resources devoted to them.

So we assume the large retailer is honest and subject the small mom and pop store to increased scrutiny? Doesn't that increase the small business compliance costs? Nice!

[pigdog]

"The retailer has agreed voluntarily? "

Since you won't read the bill you'll never know I guess, but that's covered in the bill.

Employee theft is quite a different thing from the retailer stealing the government's tax money which he has agreed in writing to collect and forward and be paid for so doing. Your link isn't meaningful in this context.

Are you trying to take the position that the retailers should not be subject to audit at all but left to go their own way??? Weren't you the poster recently arguing about how dishonest everyone was and how many would "evade" the FairTax (without specifying what "evade" meant or how they might do that or how common this would be)???