Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

End of Tax Free Internet shopping may be near
ZDNet ^ | Apr 16, 2009 5:23:59 AM | By Declan McCullagh CNET News

Posted on 04/16/2009 9:09:31 AM PDT by Snoopers-868th

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 last
To: Snoopers-868th
I don't think that most people realize just how crazy of a quilt sales taxes are. The article mentions some of this:

One of their biggest objections to the idea of collecting sales taxes on out-of-state shipments is the dizzying complexity of state laws.

Take candy, which would seem to be a straightforward item to tax. It isn't. During a 2003 discussion of tax policy, a representative of Indiana, James Turner, noted that a proposed definition of candy would have taxed the Milky Way Midnight candy bar but not the original Milky Way bar.

But further investigation showed that Turner's counter-proposal would have treated "certain flavors of Pop Tarts" and Cookies and Twix Crunchy Cookie Bars as candy--but not Cookies and Snickers Crunchy Cookie Bars. Peanut butter Girl Scout cookies would be candy, but Thin Mints or Caramel deLites would be classified as food.

And that's not to mention other bizarre activities on the part of legislatures such as sales tax holidays, means of payment rules, sales tax caps, and gross receipts taxes.

How are online retailers supposed to keep up with a situation such as when a state declares in May of 2009 that generators less than $500 are to be sold tax-free from June 1st to June 4th in both 2009 and 2010?

The article mentions the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement idea (you can find it here) as if it were some sort of solution; well, here's section 304 from that agreement:

Section 304: NOTICE FOR STATE TAX CHANGES
 A.     Each member state shall lessen the difficulties faced by sellers when there is a
        change in a state sales or use tax rate or base by making a reasonable effort to do
        all of the following:
            1.   Provide sellers with as much advance notice as practicable of a rate
                 change.
            2.   Limit the effective date of a rate change to the first day of a calendar
                 quarter.
            3.   Notify sellers of legislative changes in the tax base and amendments to
                 sales and use tax rules and regulations.
 B.     Failure of a seller to receive notice or failure of a member state to provide notice
        or limit the effective date of a rate change shall not relieve the seller of its
        obligation to collect sales or use taxes for that member state.
 C.     Each member state failing to provide for at least thirty days between the
        enactment of the statute providing for a rate change and the effective date of such
        rate change shall relieve the seller of liability for failing to collect tax at the new
        rate if:
            1.   the seller collected tax at the immediately preceding effective rate; and
            2.   the seller’s failure to collect at the newly effective rate does not extend
                 beyond thirty days after the date of enactment of the new rate.
 D.     Notwithstanding subsection C, if the member state establishes the seller
        fraudulently failed to collect at the new rate or solicits purchasers based on the
        immediately preceding effective rate this relief does not apply.
 E.     Member states may provide for relief of liability for failing to collect tax as a
        result of a tax change beyond the liability relief required by subsection C.

Note 304(B): "Failure of a seller to receive notice or failure of a member state to provide notice or limit the effective date of a rate change shall not relieve the seller of its obligation to collect sales or use taxes for that member state." Ignorance of any of the tax jurisdictions change of laws (even temporary changes) is no excuse.

81 posted on 04/16/2009 10:57:00 AM PDT by snowsislander (NRA -- join today! 1-877-NRA-2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1_Rain_Drop

they did not actually lose, my understanding is they VOLUNTARILY settled.


82 posted on 04/16/2009 11:04:40 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

oh :( I wasn’t aware of that.


83 posted on 04/16/2009 11:09:14 AM PDT by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Snoopers-868th
First state to have an zero rate for such sales gets all the business, and the rest can pound sand as every new business leaves.
84 posted on 04/16/2009 11:15:05 AM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Nope, the second best solution is taxes as low as possible. And that, this emphatically is not.
85 posted on 04/16/2009 11:15:55 AM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
I thought I was agreeing with your previous comments. The local b&m businesses have been getting a raw deal. The problem is how to fix it. Most people here don't think that taxing the Internet businesses is the best fix — they'd rather lower or eliminate taxes. I can't disagree with them on those points. I've just been saying that, if you are going to have taxes at all, they should be applied fairly. Unfortunately, it seems that “fair taxation” is almost oxymoronic.
86 posted on 04/16/2009 11:30:18 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Snoopers-868th

Wait for Congress to unleash fees on Internet access ...look at all the taxes and fees added on your phone bill...mine amount to almost 40% of the basic phone access cost ...including a federal excise tax first imposed to fund the Spanish American War. I see the same thing coming to your ISP fees.


87 posted on 04/16/2009 11:31:34 AM PDT by The Great RJ (chain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
“As low as possible” is no taxes — which would be the ideal solution. If there's only two choices — taxes or no taxes; the second-best choice is fair taxes. (Just splitting some logical hairs with you — I get what you're saying & I agree with it.)
88 posted on 04/16/2009 11:34:00 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

Thanks for providing those points of law. Interesting.


89 posted on 04/16/2009 11:36:04 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

You are right. The real solution is to shrink government and limit its power over our lives.


90 posted on 04/16/2009 2:05:55 PM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: DeFault User

Got that right! I haven’t paid tax or shipping in years.


91 posted on 04/16/2009 4:45:38 PM PDT by Westlander (Unleash the Neutron Bomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
There are never only two choices, and pretending there are to defend imposing new taxes is useful idiocy...
92 posted on 04/16/2009 10:39:23 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
O.K., by your logic, there are an infinite number of choices:

Status quo;
Status quo, with the addition of tax parity between Internet and local b&m businesses;

A small reduction in taxes;
A small reduction in taxes, with the addition of tax parity between Internet and local b&m businesses;

An infinite number more similar choices; each involving an infitisismal greater tax reduction; and,

No taxes.

93 posted on 04/17/2009 8:45:40 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

My kids got me Amazon Prime as a gift.
We buy darn near EVERYTHING from there now.
My daughter even buys diapers (3 kids worth) that way, says it’s the best deal going.


94 posted on 04/17/2009 8:51:31 AM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson