posted on November 13, 2002 02:34:41 AM
Reamond thanks for the news, you seem to be up on the sales tax somewhat. I would be interested in knowing your thoughts about income taxation too for all us little ebayers
posted on November 13, 2002 02:32:42 PM
"Recognizing the administrative burden for catalog and other "remote" retailers of complying with the country's estimated 7,500 sales tax regimes, the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that such vendors could not be forced to collect sales tax if they did not have a physical presence in the consumer's home state."
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. This is an exercise in wasteful government. The next step would be to get the states to enact legislation, and there are only 32 or so states participating. All this is doing is MAKING them look like they are at least attempting to create money, I can't imagine this is going to change anything. It's like California and Nevada agreeing that they are going to build a high speed train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas (which they have talked about) - Great, in principal, they agree this should be done. I don't know about you, but I would not expect to see this until for another couple of decades...if even then!
posted on November 13, 2002 07:56:38 PM
When it comes to revenue I think that the states will be far more resourceful and expediant than we give credit for. I am shocked how fast 32 states got as far as they have already.
What the Supreme Court has ruled on is taxing the out of state vendor, there is no prohibition against taxing the in-state purchaser.
Once the states get uniform taxing, all they need to do is identify the purchasers. How they do this can take several forms.
posted on November 13, 2002 08:50:15 PM
They can make the vendors report the information. There are laws on the books now that force cigarette vendors to supply home states with the names and addresses of out of state purchasers of cigarettes.
The Supreme Court ruled that the staes can not tax the vendor, it did not rule that the state couldn't tax the purchaser or require the vendor to supply the information in order for the state to collect the tax.
posted on November 14, 2002 12:59:02 PM
I live in Oregon and we have no sales tax. Our attorney General is on the bandwagon to have internet sales taxed that originate in Oregon. Now there's an interesting reversal in concept. If you do business in 51 states you collect & pay, if you keep the products in state you don't.
When I was living on the east coast I sold items in several states and had a store in another state that I did not live in. I had five sales tax permits and had to do mega amounts of paperwork. Paying sales tax to all these states would be a logistics nightmare.
I missed one quarter filing with New York State and got billed for $3000. even though I had no sales in New York that quarter. I had a shop in PA and when I closed it I was required to have a $20,000 bond for sales tax in order to get into the PA convention center for one show, they call it the "transient Vendors Licience" <G>. Some of these states dog you every minute.
conclusion... if any of you want to avoid these kind of nightmares then I would write to the appropriate legislator and opose any interstate sales tax requirements. This has been an issue for years and would put many businesses "out" due to the mountains of paperwork.
posted on November 14, 2002 01:26:39 PM
It's a hornet's nest and it will take forever to conceptualize and implement. Even if these States can put some sort of mechanics in place, they'll never agree on who gets what percentage of the pie. Will Idaho get the same internet Sales Tax revenue as California? I can visualize these silly arguments already...
We're located in the tax greedy state of Illinois, where they bang you up at every opportunity. Union wages are ridiculous and not it touch with reality, tolls are .50 every 50 damn feet and property taxes commonly run $8,000.00+ in our area. If it weren't for the strong school systems and the good business marketplace of Chicago, we'd be out of this State in a heartbeat. In short, Illinois is a pefect example of why the States will not be able to come to agreement. They're all going to want it all and it will prevent a deal from passing.
If the States need tax revenue, they should just build casinos and keep their noses out of internet commerce, something they will never understand.
posted on November 14, 2002 02:53:10 PM
But the 32 states in the article have already agreed to charge the same percentage as well as definitions of thousands of products.
I thought it would takes decades for states to agree to a uniform percentage for sales taxes but 32 of them did it in a year.
If the sellers are forced to report the name and address of the buyer, there will be no fighting over who gets what money- if the buyer lives in state A, state A gets the taxes. The state that the seller lives in can institute any taxes it wishes on the sellers now, so it makes no difference where the seller lives.
posted on November 14, 2002 04:06:49 PM
If buyers are forced to pay state taxes on internet and especially ebay purchases it should have a big effect on the sales at ebay. For example: California has 35 million people and an hefty sales tax. A big bonus in buying things at ebay is usually escaping the payment of a state tax and that bonus would disappear.
