Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Boyd

Sales tax is coming to the internet

Recommended Posts

Better place that Sweetwater order before it's too late.... ;)

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/us/politics/supreme-court-sales-taxes-internet-merchants.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=67185275&pgtype=Homepage

___________________

 

June 21, 2018

WASHINGTON — Internet retailers can be required to collect sales taxes in states where they have no physical presence, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

Edited by Boyd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What tax rate? The state they're in? The state you live in? And, would it effect small ebay sellers?

 

the hunch would be the State the BUYER is in. Ebay is already doing this in Mass, and yes, I got hit with a Cap Gains tax form for a guitar I sold.

 

The catch was, I really no money on it, so it was a wash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, "I wanna grow up to be a politician" ……… big time NOT! Bunch of blood suckers on all levels who never stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What tax rate? The state they're in? The state you live in? And, would it effect small ebay sellers?

 

I think the idea is that the retailer would have to charge the same rate that applies to a physical store where you are located. In the past, a big argument against this was that it's very complex for a retailer to stay up to date with taxes in not only every state, but every locality (like NYC that has it's own separate sales tax). But surely this would be trivial today, considering the speed and breadth of the internet.

 

There's already a lot of discussion about small sellers and how it would impact them, there could be exemptions. But as I understand it, the court is just punting this to the states, so it could get very confusing with each state having different regulations. This might be a good time to move to Delaware. ;)

 

They were discussing this on CNBC and somebody said he was really happy to see that the local Mom and Pop hardware stores are finally getting a break. What irony... most of those have already gone out of business - the last one in my area closed down two years ago (although I'd blame the multiple Home Depots and Lowes in the area for that and not the internet). Anyway, it seems a bit like locking the barn a few years after the horse ran away. First the internet killed local businesses, now this could kill small internet businesses.

 

Nevertheless, I think this day had to come, so bring it on. I'm just glad that I recently bought some pro audio gear from SweetWater within the past month before this started. It could add something like $200 to that nice Gibson you've been planning to buy from SweetWater or Musicians Friend though. [unsure]

Edited by Boyd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legislating on the bench! Sad!

 

Interpreting the law is exactly the function of the judicial branch of government. It's always been the case that a buyer was legally obligated to pay "use tax" if no sales tax was collected on an out of state purchase. The only difference now is that those who are so inclined will no longer be able to cheat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT'S THE SYSTEM IN BED WITH ITSELF TO PERPETUATE ITSELF … GOVERNMENT! Lambs to the slaughter and so on; we have been fully conditioned to acceptance. At least it feels that way so far. *Just aggravated, pardon please. If the money was used to the good of the tax payer, I wouldn't holler as loud. But, it never is so.

 

**17:30 - Just read my post again. Damn, I am riled up about something. Didn't know I had that much fight left in me. Must be the traffic or something. No way it could be an actual independent thought, could it? Naw, those days are long gone.

Edited by Hall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just how are we to pay for all the children & parents needing and using crumbling public services coming across the border? Why, by more taxes that's how! Gonna be something when the working stiffs don't have any more $ for taxes. Can you say revolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just how are we to pay for all the children & parents needing and using crumbling public services coming across the border? Why, by more taxes that's how! Gonna be something when the working stiffs don't have any more $ for taxes. Can you say revolution?

 

I would be delighted to respond to this, but I imagine we have some guidelines that say something about "no political discussions." Plus, we'd be hijacking the thread. So I won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpreting the law is exactly the function of the judicial branch of government. It's always been the case that a buyer was legally obligated to pay "use tax" if no sales tax was collected on an out of state purchase. The only difference now is that those who are so inclined will no longer be able to cheat.

 

I am talking with no law training here, just some brief sales tax training as I used to work for a small internet commerce company.

 

But the Constitution prohibits states from regulating interstate commerce, that is left to the Federal Government. And until this decision, my understanding is there have been no Federal regulations or laws saying that state and local sales tax must be collected on sales that take place between a company and an end user that each have nexus in different states.

 

States can require residents to pay those taxes on their returns, most states have that line on the return. The fact that residents do not complete that form is not the problem of the Federal government, it is a problem of State government.

 

My conviction is that if the Federal government wants to require internet sellers to collect sales tax from individuals that reside in states foreign to them, Congress should pass a law - it is not up to the Judicial branch to make it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am talking with no law training here, just some brief sales tax training as I used to work for a small internet commerce company.

 

But the Constitution prohibits states from regulating interstate commerce, that is left to the Federal Government. And until this decision, my understanding is there have been no Federal regulations or laws saying that state and local sales tax must be collected on sales that take place between a company and an end user that each have nexus in different states.

 

States can require residents to pay those taxes on their returns, most states have that line on the return. The fact that residents do not complete that form is not the problem of the Federal government, it is a problem of State government.

 

My conviction is that if the Federal government wants to require internet sellers to collect sales tax from individuals that reside in states foreign to them, Congress should pass a law - it is not up to the Judicial branch to make it so.

 

South Dakota implemented a state law that required businesses of a certain size to collect state sales tax no matter where the buyer was. South Dakota sued three internet companies for not doing so. Lower courts sided with the businesses, the Quill decision was what they based their decision on, Quill is the only on that has ever applied to online sales.

 

The decision was appealed and the Supreme Court decided to hear it. The idea that "the bench" is sitting there legislating is just silly and does nothing but make the speaker of it look bad. If you have a beef it is with the state of South Dakota, they probably intended from the beginning to get this idea to the Supreme Court if they could.

 

rct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anybody actually bother to read the SCOTUS decision? It does not necessarily allow any state to start collecting more internet sales taxes. The Court decided to send the case, which involves a South Dakota sales tax law, back to the lower court for another trial. It could be years before the ruling has any impact on state revenue. On the other hand, some large companies such as Sweetwater could voluntarily comply with the Court's decision and start collecting any purchase sales tax without waiting for what will happen with the South Dakota decision.

Edited by zombywoof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as PEOPLE keep demanding more free stuff and free services SOMEONE will have to pay for it.

 

Taxes are how they raise the money.

 

We're the "someone".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

South Dakota implemented a state law that required businesses of a certain size to collect state sales tax no matter where the buyer was. South Dakota sued three internet companies for not doing so. Lower courts sided with the businesses, the Quill decision was what they based their decision on, Quill is the only on that has ever applied to online sales.

 

The decision was appealed and the Supreme Court decided to hear it. The idea that "the bench" is sitting there legislating is just silly and does nothing but make the speaker of it look bad. If you have a beef it is with the state of South Dakota, they probably intended from the beginning to get this idea to the Supreme Court if they could.

 

rct

 

Thank you RCT for the backstory!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as PEOPLE keep demanding more free stuff and free services SOMEONE will have to pay for it.

 

Taxes are how they raise the money.

 

We're the "someone".

 

NOW you tell us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio's State Tax form has a line to declare how much you spent in online purchases that year...good thing I never buy anything off the internet...(Shhhhh.....)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will find that most states expect you to pay tax on out-of-state purchases that weren't taxed. This is called "use tax" - do a search for it on your state website. In fact, you will probably find that you're even supposed to pay the difference on purchases from states with lower tax rates. For example, if you pay 5% tax on an item in another state and your local tax is 7% , you are supposed to send them another 2%!

 

I remember my accountant (who was very straight-laced and conservative) just laughed at me when I paid this once. He said he'd never known anyone else who did that. ;)

Edited by Boyd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And, would it effect small ebay sellers?

From what I've heard, no! If a person or business does over $100,000 in sales, then yes, they have to start collecting the tax and pay it to the govt. Same if they had over 200 transactions. Well, wait - that's the South Dakota rule. Apparently each state will have its own rule. Not sure when this all will take effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've heard, no! If a person or business does over $100,000 in sales, then yes, they have to start collecting the tax and pay it to the govt. Same if they had over 200 transactions. Well, wait - that's the South Dakota rule. Apparently each state will have its own rule. Not sure when this all will take effect.

 

It's getting harder and harder to remain 'law-aiding'. We're reaching the tipping point where it is going to be impossible for the average man to not break some arcane, unknown law. Is it the government's intent to have so many complicated, conflicting laws - that they'll be able to arrest anyone they want whenever they feel like it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...