Posted on 06/21/2018 9:54:25 AM PDT by Poison Pill
Online shoppers could find costs going up after the Supreme Court did away Thursday with a decades-old precedent limiting the ability of states to collect sales tax on certain out-of-state Internet purchases.
The 5-4 ruling called the current rules “unsound and incorrect.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
"More than 40 states had asked the high court to overrule two, decades-old Supreme Court decisions that they said cost them billions of dollars in lost revenue annually."
...
"The cases the court overturned said that if a business was shipping a customer’s purchase to a state where the business didn’t have a physical presence such as a warehouse or office, the business didn’t have to collect the state’s sales tax. Customers were generally responsible for paying the sales tax to the state themselves if they weren’t charged it, but most didn’t realize they owed it and few paid."
https://apnews.com/332abb7455cb4b60b2effc0852ff3c89/High-Court:-Online-shoppers-can-be-forced-to-pay-sales-tax
Sales Tax on the Internet
"Despite what you sometimes hear, however, some Internet sales are subject to sales tax, and even when a site doesn't collect sales tax, consumers are technically responsible for remitting any unpaid sales tax on online purchases directly to their state.
...
Under the RTPA, however, any seller who sells through an electronic marketplace like Amazon would not qualify for the small seller exception."
Consumers May Be Required to Report and Pay Sales or Use Taxes
"For consumers that order tax-free items online, but live in states that charge a sales tax, they are technically required to report that purchase to their state tax agency and pay the sales tax directly to the agency. When consumers are required to do so, it is often called a "use" tax."
It sure is except income tax collects it whether you buy anything or not. 😀
To be honest a tax is a tax. Oregon just chose to collect it on income rather than sales. Some states have both, some have neither. I left California about 10 years back and they have both and either one is higher than Oregon.
It may be a cash grab but why should LL Bean have to charge me NYS sales tax because they have a retail store 52 miles away and Amazon doesnt, because they have no store even though the C Crane Radio I bought actually came from a retail audio store in Yonkers NY. That give Bezos an enormous advantage.
Along with some states charge taxes differently for food products or pharmaceutical products or charge no taxes on some. If you are going to re-sell an item you have a state tax waiver from the state and must pay the tax at final sale to consumer. Quite a headache for an ebay shop having to track state/county tax levels, waivers for resellers, not all items taxable in some areas. Should drive folks back to stores. OR; a niche for a new business model for an intermediary store in a non sales tax state that 'purchases' the item for you for a fee smaller than a tax and it drop ships to you.
I live in California so I better use my Amazon gift card fast. I’m sure Jerry Brown is chomping at the bit to impliment this pay for his choo-choo and lawyers for illeals.
Nowhere in the ruling do I see an effective date, so does each state, county, and city set it's own? And what's to stop them from saying anything within the applicable statute of limitations?
For a sale yesterday or last year, do I need to go back and ask for taxes? If someone contacted you, would you pay?
Yes, that is a complication. Sales tax may cover one or more or all of the following: non-food items, food, medicines, services, shipping, etc. And all of it could and is called a sales tax.
...
South Dakota wanted out-of-state retailers to begin collecting the tax and sued several of them: Overstock.com, electronics retailer Newegg and home goods company Wayfair. The state conceded in court, however, that it could only win by persuading the Supreme Court to do away with its physical presence rule. After the decision was announced, shares in Wayfair and Overstock both fell, with Wayfair down more than 3 percent and Overstock down more than 2 percent.
The Trump administration had urged the justices to side with South Dakota.
The case is South Dakota v. Wayfair, 17-494."
https://apnews.com/332abb7455cb4b60b2effc0852ff3c89/High-Court:-Online-shoppers-can-be-forced-to-pay-sales-tax
This is really a state issue. If your state decides to charge you sales tax for a purchase made online...or in a brick n mortar location...your fight will be at the state level.
Another viewpoint is that SCOTUS and Trump just dropped an atom bomb on Amazon and eBay, and helping local brick and mortar small business.
This is protectionism for the brick and mortar stores, nothing more.
Congress can fix this.
Collect it anyway. Statists need all the money.
The Constitution? That old thing? Who pays attention to that?
Amazon and eBay and similar companies are not affected by this as they already collect (and maybe pay) taxes in all of these jurisdictions. The challenge is small companies, independent companies like mine that do not sale via Amazon, etc.
The states have an insatiable need greed for money. There is nothing greedier or more rapacious than a government.
This is and should be a states issue, however, it makes very little sense.
What is the difference between 1) me buying something online from a seller out of state and having it shipped to me, and 2) me driving out of state and purchasing the item and bringing it back in?
Flip side, if I own a business and sell online, why should I collect taxes for another state, and how would that other state enforce me (out of its jurisdiction) to collect those taxes? I didn’t go to do business in the other state. The customer came to my state and sought my business out. Seems like if anything, it should be treated like the online user physically visited my store and he just has to pay my states sales tax.
Any attorneys here that can explain what the enforcement looks like to force tax collection in another state? Are they going to bar my online store from being seen in the buyers state?
This seems very confusing.
Article I, section 9 is a limit on Congress's power to tax, not the States' powers.
Because it’s the government. Government is out for itself. Government is greedy; there is none greedier. They can, so they will.
Since one state’s government has no jurisdiction over a business in another state....how in the world can this be enforced?
Yeah, of course it is.
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.