[AZ] Online purchases now help fill state coffers

Arizonans are now paying more money to state and local governments for the items they’re buying online.

The Department of Revenue reports it collected an extra $51.5 million in the first two months after a new law went into effect. Of that, $23.4 million is going into the state treasury, with the balance parceled out among cities and counties.

What makes this number so impressive is budget analysts predicted the net gain to the general fund for a full fiscal year would be just $85 million.

And the collections reported so far don’t even represent December Christmas sales.

What it represents is Arizona’s effort to take advantage of a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision which concluded states are free to levy their taxes on all sales made into the state, regardless of the source.

Previously, the law had been that a business had a “nexus’’ to the taxing state, usually in the form of a physical presence.

So, purchases made from, say, a Target store always have been subject to the state’s 5.6 percent tax plus applicable local taxes. Ditto to purchases from Target.com given that retailer’s presence.

But an online retailer in New York state who sold and shipped a $300 camera collected neither New York’s sales tax nor the Arizona’s.

As of Oct. 1, Arizona began requiring retailers who make at least $200,000 in direct sales into Arizona to begin charging what is technically called the state’s “transaction privilege tax.’’

Put simply, the purchase of a $300 camera online from one of the retailers required to collect the levy would add $16.80 in state taxes. And someone living in a city and county with a combined local rate of 4 percent would find another $12 tacked on.

Ed Greenberg, spokesman for the Department of Revenue, said his agency already has issued about 2,100 of these “remote seller’’ licenses.

More retailers will soon be subject to the levy. Later this year the threshold for having to collect Arizona taxes goes to $150,000, dropping to $100,000 in 2021.

Shoppers who go online or travel elsewhere to buy everything from clothing to furniture and electronics legally have been required since 1955 to compute what they would have paid had they purchased the items in Arizona and then send that amount off to the state every month.

The state last budget year collected slightly more than $326 million in use taxes, a small fraction of the $7.4 billion taken in.

There are no firm figures on how many individuals are complying with the law or, more to the point, are ignoring it.

The new tax on out-of-state retailers is designed to make up for that lack of compliance and narrow the gap between Arizona retailers and their out-of-state competitors.

As it turns out, at least some online purchases made by Arizonans already were being taxed, even before the new law kicked in.

Amazon began collecting state sales taxes in 2012 on its own products and those of Amazon affiliates after reaching an agreement to settle a $53 million assessment made against it by the Department of Revenue.

For years the Seattle-based company argued its online sales were not subject to the levy because, unlike a place like Target, it did not have retail outlets in the state.

What it does have, however, are distribution warehouses where goods from elsewhere are processed and sent out to Arizona customers. And that, revenue officials argued, provides the legal “nexus’’ to the state.

But that agreement did not cover situations where Amazon was simply a platform for other out-of-state retailers. The new law should fill that gap.

Instead of putting additional burden on citizens for tax revenues, the states need to support PDJT in putting a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

Note that most federal domestic social spending programs are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated state revenues imo.

In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the Founding States had left the care of the people uniquely to the states, not the federal government.

”[…] the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)

So why are citizens now being oppressed under the boots of the unconstitutionally big federal government, evidenced by unconstitutional taxes?

Regarding unconstitutional federal domestic taxing and spending, using inappropriate words like “concept” and “implicit,” the excerpt below from Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard) shows what was left of the defense of 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state sovereignty by the last of state sovereignty-respecting majority justices in United States v. Butler, FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices later blatantly ignoring the reasonable Butler interpretation of 10A when they scandalously decided Wickard in Congress’s favor imo.

"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.

In other words, the ongoing tsunami of unconstitutional federal taxes is arguably based on the scandalous, effective repeal of 10A by FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justice majority.

And to make putting a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes permanent, the states need to further support PDJT in leading the states to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.

Remember in November!

MAGA! Now KAGA! (Keep America Great Always!)

"The “Holy Grail” of organized crime is to control government power to tax." —me
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy,” —Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819.
"The 16th Amendment effectively repealed the involuntary servitude aspect of the 13th Amendment imo, evidenced by unconstitutional federal taxes." —me
- "Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
- "13th Amendment, Section 1:
  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude [emphasis added], except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
- "16th Amendment:
  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
"The ill-conceived 17th Amendment not only effectively politically repealed the 3/4 state supermajority requirement of the Constitution’s Article V for ratification of proposed amendments to the Constitution imo, politically correct interpretations of the Constitution now prevailing under Democratic judicial tyranny, but also consider this. That amendment also effectively nullified Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers along with the Supreme Court’s clarification of Congress’s limited power to appropriate taxes." —me
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"The constitutionally undefined political parties are basically rival, corrupt voter unions, “union dues” paid by means of unconstitutional federal taxes. Belonging to a political party means that you are a subject, not a member.” —me
"Patriots need to support PDJT in demanding that Congress moves "April 15" tax day to the day before election day." —me
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me

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.