<< <i>If one buys out of state, I guess I don't understand why State A would not want its full% due regardless of how much one paid in sales tax in state B. There is nothing in in for state A as their business has lost the sale and the state lost its sales tax. Is there some sort of law that says that only one entity can impose a sales tax? >>
Bingo, there lies the problem. States should be attempting to tax all sales made in the states, regardless of where the product goes. If consumers are going to be taxed by a state for purchases it makes the most sense to tax at the point of sale, just as done in retail stores. Funny how it doesn't matter where you are taking the product if you buy in a retail store but it does matter if it is getting shipped to you. A simple removal of whatever law exempts out of state sales would do the trick. It is probably a federal law that deals with interstate commerce. As a consumer I like things the way they are. But if I were a state looking for revenue this is the approach I would take. >>
If I buy an item in person in Minnesota I will pay Minn sales tax. If I'm in Iowa and buy the same item over the phone/internet using a credit card, should I still pay only Minn sales tax? In either case, Iowa gets nothing.
From my two Senators.
Statement from Harkin:
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement after the U.S. Senate approved the Marketplace Fairness Act by a vote of 69 to 27. The legislation would strengthen Main Street Iowa businesses by authorizing states to require remote sellers such as online shopping sites to collect and return sales tax related to purchases made by residents of that state. Harkin is a cosponsor of the measure and has supported every similar measure to come before the Senate over the past 20 years.
“This legislation levels the playing field for Iowa’s Main Street businesses, which are at a disadvantage as residents look at merchandise in local stores and then order the product online. It also means a more level playing field for our state and local governments, which are experiencing a loss of revenue that has to be made up with fewer services or higher property or other taxes. Now that the U.S. Senate has sent a clear message, I hope to see the bill become law this year.”
Statement from Grassley:
“There are a lot of questions about how this legislation would work as a practical matter. How would it be enforced, even on foreign-based businesses, and what kind of costs and administrative burdens it would put on all businesses? Could businesses face audits from any state that acts on the authority given by the legislation? What about the lack of certainty regarding how far the tax authority could be taken by states? Would it result in states imposing taxes on financial transactions, for example?
“In addition, there’s an unresolved Constitutional concern. Congress has the authority to allow states to exercise authority across state lines under the commerce clause, but Congress does not have authority to loosen requirements under the due-process clause, which requires a minimum level of contacts between a state and a business before a state may exercise taxing authority over a business. A single sale in a state isn’t likely to meet that standard.
“These are important questions, and they should have been addressed in the Senate committee of jurisdiction, the Finance Committee. Bringing this bill directly to the floor circumvented the committee process and the scrutiny and expertise needed for good tax policy.”
<< <i>If I buy an item in person in Minnesota I will pay Minn sales tax. If I'm in Iowa and buy the same item over the phone/internet using a credit card, should I still pay only Minn sales tax? In either case, Iowa gets nothing. >>
If you buy it in the store while visiting Minnesota and then take it home to Iowa, Iowa still gets nothing (unless you report and pay the "use" tax to Iowa). What's really the difference? If I live three miles across the state line from Georgia and I buy my groceries at the nearest Publix in Florida, I pay Florida sales tax at the point of purchase.
If you are going to require sales tax on on-line purchases, the tax should go to the state where the sale occured. I say eliminate all "use" taxes that go to the buyer's home sate and charge state sales tax in the state where the transaction occurs. This is simple (already being done by retailers) and would cause states to attempt to attract large on-line retailers and the employement that comes with them.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding federal tax policy. Your taking the time to contact me is appreciated.
Over 20 years have passed since the Supreme Court found (Quill v. North Dakota) that current state and local sales tax rules were too complicated to require retailers to collect sales taxes unless they had a physical presence in the state of the consumer. This decision resulted in legislative responses at both the state and Federal level.
States responded by adopting, the "Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement," a comprehensive interstate system to streamline and harmonize their tax rules and administrative requirements. This agreement was approved by 34 states and the District of Columbia, and became effective in 2005. Georgia became a full member state in 2012.
Congress' attempted responses to the Supreme Court's decision have been varied. While some proposals have been drafted to simply sanction the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, other proposals have attempted to create new "internet sales taxes," a course of action that I do not support.
Earlier this year, S. 336, the Marketplace Fairness Act, was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. S. 336 was not passed out of committee for consideration by the full Senate, though identical legislation, S. 743, was recently considered by the full Senate.
On May 6, I, along with 68 of my colleagues voted on S. 743, the new Marketplace Fairness bill, which would sanction the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement that the State of Georgia has already adopted. S. 743 ultimately passed the Senate with a 69-27 vote margin. I believe Congress should enable brick-and-mortar retailers to operate on the same playing field as e-commerce retailers. This bill ensures that local businesses are not placed at an unfair disadvantage compared to their online competitors.
Whenever legislation regarding internet taxation or the collection and remittance of local sales taxes is considered by the full Senate, I will certainly keep your views in mind.
If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov. Please let me know how I may be of assistance.
<< <i>If I buy an item in person in Minnesota I will pay Minn sales tax. If I'm in Iowa and buy the same item over the phone/internet using a credit card, should I still pay only Minn sales tax? In either case, Iowa gets nothing. >>
If you buy it in the store while visiting Minnesota and then take it home to Iowa, Iowa still gets nothing (unless you report and pay the "use" tax to Iowa). What's really the difference? If I live three miles across the state line from Georgia and I buy my groceries at the nearest Publix in Florida, I pay Florida sales tax at the point of purchase.
If you are going to require sales tax on on-line purchases, the tax should go to the state where the sale occured. I say eliminate all "use" taxes that go to the buyer's home sate and charge state sales tax in the state where the transaction occurs. This is simple (already being done by retailers) and would cause states to attempt to attract large on-line retailers and the employement that comes with them. >>
That would be great for us sellers where there is no tax on coins! Problem is...I think specific exemptions will be swept under the rug.
My impression of the net effect of S.743, if signed by the Messiah of Hope and Change, is that consumers will aggressively ramp up the pressure on retailers that they had sidestepped originally, to reduce their profit margins to compete with the cost that would be added to newly taxed purchasing interstate via the internet. For B & M retailers to expect that S.743 will in effect "level the playing field" is a very serious underestimation of the resolve of those Americans who are and have been disgusted for years by the already blatantly evident waste and misuse of tax revenues in every state of the Union.
<< <i>When I started as manager of a B&M store 1991-2001 they were doing a huge dollar volume of business in silver eagle rolls (only around $150 or so at the time) but the buyers would always pull out the ads on the back of the Greysheet for free shipping and no sales tax so if we wanted the sale, we had to match the price, eat the sales tax and they wanted to pay by creidt card, so we also had to eat the 3% CC fee ( and the Greysheet dealers at the time demanded wire transfers) When I looked at the numbers, the store was losing about $5 per roll sold. >>
Something's missing here. Nobody was holding a gun to your head and forcing you to make the sale on their terms, were they? If you didn't think the terms demanded were a good deal for the store, you could refuse the offer, couldn't you? >>
I was the manager, not the owner. And the owner was one of those "customer is always right - never, ever turn down a sale" types.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>I still think it would be far easier for eBay to total up everything a user purchases for the year without paying sales tax and issue them a 1099 form... perhaps a new 1099-U. Then that buyer would have to report that amount on their personal returns and pay use tax on that amount if applicable in their state/county/city. The law is already there, but enforcement is the issue. So just 1099 them like every other part of the tax code where enforcement has been problematic in the past. It would be very easy for eBay to issue buyers this 1099 and other major retailers could easily do the same. Seems much easier than the current proposals getting voted upon. >>
The 1099 forms are for Federal taxes. Ebay can easily collect this tax at checkout, just like Amazon does after Texas Gov Perry sued them. Ebay is worried that their new Amazon business model -- trying to get rid of collectibles - which John D thinks gives eBay a low brow flea market image -- in favor of big sellers selling lots of new made-in-China junk -- becomes less profitable for eBay if buyers can buy the same items right away locally at Fry's or Best Buy or Kmart and there is no longer the 6% to 9% sales tax savings buying online.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>If one buys out of state, I guess I don't understand why State A would not want its full% due regardless of how much one paid in sales tax in state B. There is nothing in it for state A as their business has lost the sale and the state lost its sales tax. Is there some sort of law that says that only one entity can impose a sales tax? >>
Federal law prohibits states from treating interstate commerce from other states in a discriminatory manner. Therefore there is a credit for taxes paid to other states so that the total due is no more than had the buyer purchased from an in-state source.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>Funny how it doesn't matter where you are taking the product if you buy in a retail store >>
If you are taking the item from a low tax state to a higher tax state, you are required to pay the difference to the higher tax state. Even if you buy in person.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>I still think it would be far easier for eBay to total up everything a user purchases for the year without paying sales tax and issue them a 1099 form... perhaps a new 1099-U. Then that buyer would have to report that amount on their personal returns and pay use tax on that amount if applicable in their state/county/city. The law is already there, but enforcement is the issue. So just 1099 them like every other part of the tax code where enforcement has been problematic in the past. It would be very easy for eBay to issue buyers this 1099 and other major retailers could easily do the same. Seems much easier than the current proposals getting voted upon. >>
The 1099 forms are for Federal taxes. Ebay can easily collect this tax at checkout, just like Amazon does after Texas Gov Perry sued them. Ebay is worried that their new Amazon business model -- trying to get rid of collectibles - which John D thinks gives eBay a low brow flea market image -- in favor of big sellers selling lots of new made-in-China junk -- becomes less profitable for eBay if buyers can buy the same items right away locally at Fry's or Best Buy or Kmart and there is no longer the 6% to 9% sales tax savings buying online. >>
Even with the sales tax added, there are many things that are cheaper online than from a local merchant. The problem with locals is that they can't buy in large enough volume to get good price breaks. I remember a local TV store guy saying that he could buy TVs cheaper from KMart when they had them on sale than he could from his distributor.
"This isn't about taxation -- it's about Amazon, WalMart and a handful of other large online retailers forcing others to bear compliance costs that they voluntarily assumed as a consequence of their business model and which these other firms have legally avoided through their business model." - Karl Denninger
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i>"This isn't about taxation -- it's about Amazon, WalMart and a handful of other large online retailers forcing others to bear compliance costs that they voluntarily assumed as a consequence of their business model and which these other firms have legally avoided through their business model." >>
In other words, businesses attempting to use the power of government to their advantage. And, of course, when there are problems, it will be blamed on free market capitalism.
<< <i>I was the manager, not the owner. And the owner was one of those "customer is always right - never, ever turn down a sale" types. >>
In that case, there was no problem to begin with. >>
I finally had to quit after my pay became over $10,000 in arrears, so I would call it a problem. >>
You should have taken $10,000 value of coins with you when you left.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
The key question is how effective is the safe harbor... If this means you open yourself up to sales tax audits from CA, NY, IL...could shut down all e-commerce LOL
All of this is wasted electrons unless your business does $1 million a year online. The big volume guys are either already geared up for it, or can be on short notice- and the smaller guys don't have to worry about it... which leaves the sellers who do right around that $1 mil level annually... all they need do is make sure they stop at $999,999 to avoid the hassle. And that's per tax number...you can get more than one of those you know.
That said, this is one of the few times I can say it's a benefit living in IL...
<< <i>All of this is wasted electrons unless your business does $1 million a year online. The big volume guys are either already geared up for it, or can be on short notice- and the smaller guys don't have to worry about it... which leaves the sellers who do right around that $1 mil level annually... all they need do is make sure they stop at $999,999 to avoid the hassle. And that's per tax number...you can get more than one of those you know.
That said, this is one of the few times I can say it's a benefit living in IL... >>
Wouldn't you have to be an ESTABLISHED business and have a track record of at least a million $$ volume before you would have to start collecting? I doubt that once you cross the million $$ threshold that you will have to go back and collect tax on previous transactions. Also if you expect to top a million and fall short, I don't think they would expect you to return anything that you collected.
"The Court had previously held that under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states may not impose tax responsibility on out of state sellers that do not have a physical presence in the state."
"Now that the Supremes have declined the Amazon case, Congress will be free to impose burdensome taxation and other regulations on the internet."
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Just an idea here, back in the 80s and 90s many people incorporated their business in Nevada because of the tax benefits and the benefits to do so being offered by Nevada. Saying this all passes what is to stop a seller/retailer from registering their business in a tax exempt state thus making this much less of an issue. Those that are CPAs know the tricks, just like incorporating your marriage to receive extra benefits.
This is a tough tax to swallow since we have gotten used to not paying tax online---Here is an idea drop the income tax by 1% and then enforce the internet sales tax
John, Nevada does have a sales tax. We don't have a state income tax. You would have to go to a state like Alaska, Delaware, New Hampshire, Montana or Oregon.
bob
Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
<< <i>CPA 's like myself will get to buy more coins under this new legislation.
The additional fees we will earn will be astonishing. >>
Accountants and lawyers are often the prime beneficiaries when the government imposes new taxes and regulations. For those who love more taxes regulations take a look at Europe where middle class people pay 60% or more of their income in taxes. That is our future.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>Just an idea here, back in the 80s and 90s many people incorporated their business in Nevada because of the tax benefits and the benefits to do so being offered by Nevada. Saying this all passes what is to stop a seller/retailer from registering their business in a tax exempt state thus making this much less of an issue. Those that are CPAs know the tricks, just like incorporating your marriage to receive extra benefits. >>
Doesn't matter what state you do business in, the new law will allow other states to reach across state lines and prosecute those that don't comply. Wonder what happened to the Supremes' earlier ruling: ""The Court had previously held that under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states may not impose tax responsibility on out of state sellers that do not have a physical presence in the state." Seems this ruling would hold precedence until changed by a new ruling which the Supremes' have declined to give.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
We need to fly Bezos in with a drone to help us out with the house.
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose, Cardinal.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>If one buys out of state, I guess I don't understand why State A would not want its full% due regardless of how much one paid in sales tax in state B. There is nothing in in for state A as their business has lost the sale and the state lost its sales tax. Is there some sort of law that says that only one entity can impose a sales tax? >>
Bingo, there lies the problem. States should be attempting to tax all sales made in the states, regardless of where the product goes. If consumers are going to be taxed by a state for purchases it makes the most sense to tax at the point of sale, just as done in retail stores. Funny how it doesn't matter where you are taking the product if you buy in a retail store but it does matter if it is getting shipped to you. A simple removal of whatever law exempts out of state sales would do the trick. It is probably a federal law that deals with interstate commerce. As a consumer I like things the way they are. But if I were a state looking for revenue this is the approach I would take. >>
If I buy an item in person in Minnesota I will pay Minn sales tax. If I'm in Iowa and buy the same item over the phone/internet using a credit card, should I still pay only Minn sales tax? In either case, Iowa gets nothing.
From my two Senators.
Statement from Harkin:
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement after the U.S. Senate approved the Marketplace Fairness Act by a vote of 69 to 27. The legislation would strengthen Main Street Iowa businesses by authorizing states to require remote sellers such as online shopping sites to collect and return sales tax related to purchases made by residents of that state. Harkin is a cosponsor of the measure and has supported every similar measure to come before the Senate over the past 20 years.
“This legislation levels the playing field for Iowa’s Main Street businesses, which are at a disadvantage as residents look at merchandise in local stores and then order the product online. It also means a more level playing field for our state and local governments, which are experiencing a loss of revenue that has to be made up with fewer services or higher property or other taxes. Now that the U.S. Senate has sent a clear message, I hope to see the bill become law this year.”
Statement from Grassley:
“There are a lot of questions about how this legislation would work as a practical matter. How would it be enforced, even on foreign-based businesses, and what kind of costs and administrative burdens it would put on all businesses? Could businesses face audits from any state that acts on the authority given by the legislation? What about the lack of certainty regarding how far the tax authority could be taken by states? Would it result in states imposing taxes on financial transactions, for example?
“In addition, there’s an unresolved Constitutional concern. Congress has the authority to allow states to exercise authority across state lines under the commerce clause, but Congress does not have authority to loosen requirements under the due-process clause, which requires a minimum level of contacts between a state and a business before a state may exercise taxing authority over a business. A single sale in a state isn’t likely to meet that standard.
“These are important questions, and they should have been addressed in the Senate committee of jurisdiction, the Finance Committee. Bringing this bill directly to the floor circumvented the committee process and the scrutiny and expertise needed for good tax policy.”
<< <i>If I buy an item in person in Minnesota I will pay Minn sales tax. If I'm in Iowa and buy the same item over the phone/internet using a credit card, should I still pay only Minn sales tax? In either case, Iowa gets nothing. >>
If you buy it in the store while visiting Minnesota and then take it home to Iowa, Iowa still gets nothing (unless you report and pay the "use" tax to Iowa). What's really the difference? If I live three miles across the state line from Georgia and I buy my groceries at the nearest Publix in Florida, I pay Florida sales tax at the point of purchase.
If you are going to require sales tax on on-line purchases, the tax should go to the state where the sale occured. I say eliminate all "use" taxes that go to the buyer's home sate and charge state sales tax in the state where the transaction occurs. This is simple (already being done by retailers) and would cause states to attempt to attract large on-line retailers and the employement that comes with them.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Dear Darrell:
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding federal tax policy. Your taking the time to contact me is appreciated.
Over 20 years have passed since the Supreme Court found (Quill v. North Dakota) that current state and local sales tax rules were too complicated to require retailers to collect sales taxes unless they had a physical presence in the state of the consumer. This decision resulted in legislative responses at both the state and Federal level.
States responded by adopting, the "Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement," a comprehensive interstate system to streamline and harmonize their tax rules and administrative requirements. This agreement was approved by 34 states and the District of Columbia, and became effective in 2005. Georgia became a full member state in 2012.
Congress' attempted responses to the Supreme Court's decision have been varied. While some proposals have been drafted to simply sanction the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, other proposals have attempted to create new "internet sales taxes," a course of action that I do not support.
Earlier this year, S. 336, the Marketplace Fairness Act, was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. S. 336 was not passed out of committee for consideration by the full Senate, though identical legislation, S. 743, was recently considered by the full Senate.
On May 6, I, along with 68 of my colleagues voted on S. 743, the new Marketplace Fairness bill, which would sanction the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement that the State of Georgia has already adopted. S. 743 ultimately passed the Senate with a 69-27 vote margin. I believe Congress should enable brick-and-mortar retailers to operate on the same playing field as e-commerce retailers. This bill ensures that local businesses are not placed at an unfair disadvantage compared to their online competitors.
Whenever legislation regarding internet taxation or the collection and remittance of local sales taxes is considered by the full Senate, I will certainly keep your views in mind.
If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov. Please let me know how I may be of assistance.
<< <i>
<< <i>If I buy an item in person in Minnesota I will pay Minn sales tax. If I'm in Iowa and buy the same item over the phone/internet using a credit card, should I still pay only Minn sales tax? In either case, Iowa gets nothing. >>
If you buy it in the store while visiting Minnesota and then take it home to Iowa, Iowa still gets nothing (unless you report and pay the "use" tax to Iowa). What's really the difference? If I live three miles across the state line from Georgia and I buy my groceries at the nearest Publix in Florida, I pay Florida sales tax at the point of purchase.
If you are going to require sales tax on on-line purchases, the tax should go to the state where the sale occured. I say eliminate all "use" taxes that go to the buyer's home sate and charge state sales tax in the state where the transaction occurs. This is simple (already being done by retailers) and would cause states to attempt to attract large on-line retailers and the employement that comes with them. >>
That would be great for us sellers where there is no tax on coins! Problem is...I think specific exemptions will be swept under the rug.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>When I started as manager of a B&M store 1991-2001 they were doing a huge dollar volume of business in silver eagle rolls (only around
$150 or so at the time) but the buyers would always pull out the ads on the back of the Greysheet for free shipping and no sales tax so if we
wanted the sale, we had to match the price, eat the sales tax and they wanted to pay by creidt card, so we also had to eat the 3% CC fee
( and the Greysheet dealers at the time demanded wire transfers) When I looked at the numbers, the store was losing about $5 per roll sold. >>
Something's missing here. Nobody was holding a gun to your head and forcing you to make the sale on their terms, were they? If you didn't think the terms demanded were a good deal for the store, you could refuse the offer, couldn't you? >>
I was the manager, not the owner. And the owner was one of those "customer is always right - never, ever turn down a sale" types.
How the Maker of TurboTax Fought Free, Simple Tax Filing
Karl Denninger describes the "fairness" scam from Amazon's perspective:
The Faux Battle Over Online Sales Taxes
<< <i>I still think it would be far easier for eBay to total up everything a user purchases for the year without paying sales tax and issue them a 1099 form... perhaps a new 1099-U. Then that buyer would have to report that amount on their personal returns and pay use tax on that amount if applicable in their state/county/city. The law is already there, but enforcement is the issue. So just 1099 them like every other part of the tax code where enforcement has been problematic in the past. It would be very easy for eBay to issue buyers this 1099 and other major retailers could easily do the same. Seems much easier than the current proposals getting voted upon. >>
The 1099 forms are for Federal taxes. Ebay can easily collect this tax at checkout, just like Amazon does after Texas Gov Perry sued them. Ebay is worried that their new Amazon business model -- trying to get rid of collectibles - which John D thinks gives eBay a low brow flea market image -- in favor of big sellers selling lots of new made-in-China junk -- becomes less profitable for eBay if buyers can buy the same items right away locally at Fry's or Best Buy or Kmart and there is no longer the 6% to 9% sales tax savings buying online.
<< <i>If one buys out of state, I guess I don't understand why State A would not want its full% due regardless of how much one paid in sales tax in state B. There is nothing in it for state A as their business has lost the sale and the state lost its sales tax. Is there some sort of law that says that only one entity can impose a sales tax? >>
Federal law prohibits states from treating interstate commerce from other states in a discriminatory manner. Therefore there is a credit for taxes paid to other states
so that the total due is no more than had the buyer purchased from an in-state source.
<< <i>I was the manager, not the owner. And the owner was one of those "customer is always right - never, ever turn down a sale" types. >>
In that case, there was no problem to begin with.
<< <i>Funny how it doesn't matter where you are taking the product if you buy in a retail store >>
If you are taking the item from a low tax state to a higher tax state, you are required to pay the difference to
the higher tax state. Even if you buy in person.
The additional fees we will earn will be astonishing.
<< <i>
<< <i>I still think it would be far easier for eBay to total up everything a user purchases for the year without paying sales tax and issue them a 1099 form... perhaps a new 1099-U. Then that buyer would have to report that amount on their personal returns and pay use tax on that amount if applicable in their state/county/city. The law is already there, but enforcement is the issue. So just 1099 them like every other part of the tax code where enforcement has been problematic in the past. It would be very easy for eBay to issue buyers this 1099 and other major retailers could easily do the same. Seems much easier than the current proposals getting voted upon. >>
The 1099 forms are for Federal taxes. Ebay can easily collect this tax at checkout, just like Amazon does after Texas Gov Perry sued them. Ebay is worried that their new Amazon business model -- trying to get rid of collectibles - which John D thinks gives eBay a low brow flea market image -- in favor of big sellers selling lots of new made-in-China junk -- becomes less profitable for eBay if buyers can buy the same items right away locally at Fry's or Best Buy or Kmart and there is no longer the 6% to 9% sales tax savings buying online. >>
Even with the sales tax added, there are many things that are cheaper online than from a local merchant. The problem with locals is that they can't buy in large enough volume to get good price breaks. I remember a local TV store guy saying that he could buy TVs cheaper from KMart when they had them on sale than he could from his distributor.
<< <i>
<< <i>I was the manager, not the owner. And the owner was one of those "customer is always right - never, ever turn down a sale" types. >>
In that case, there was no problem to begin with. >>
I finally had to quit after my pay became over $10,000 in arrears, so I would call it a problem.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<< <i>"This isn't about taxation -- it's about Amazon, WalMart and a handful of other large online retailers forcing others to bear compliance costs that they voluntarily assumed as a consequence of their business model and which these other firms have legally avoided through their business model." >>
In other words, businesses attempting to use the power of government to their advantage. And, of course, when there are problems, it will be blamed on free market capitalism.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I was the manager, not the owner. And the owner was one of those "customer is always right - never, ever turn down a sale" types. >>
In that case, there was no problem to begin with. >>
I finally had to quit after my pay became over $10,000 in arrears, so I would call it a problem. >>
You should have taken $10,000 value of coins with you when you left.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
If this means you open yourself up to sales tax audits from CA, NY, IL...could shut down all e-commerce LOL
That said, this is one of the few times I can say it's a benefit living in IL...
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>All of this is wasted electrons unless your business does $1 million a year online. The big volume guys are either already geared up for it, or can be on short notice- and the smaller guys don't have to worry about it... which leaves the sellers who do right around that $1 mil level annually... all they need do is make sure they stop at $999,999 to avoid the hassle. And that's per tax number...you can get more than one of those you know.
That said, this is one of the few times I can say it's a benefit living in IL...
Wouldn't you have to be an ESTABLISHED business and have a track record of at least a million $$ volume before you would have to start collecting? I doubt that once you cross the million $$ threshold that you will have to go back and collect tax on previous transactions. Also if you expect to top a million and fall short, I don't think they would expect you to return anything that you collected.
"The Court had previously held that under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states may not impose tax responsibility on out of state sellers that do not have a physical presence in the state."
"Now that the Supremes have declined the Amazon case, Congress will be free to impose burdensome taxation and other regulations on the internet."
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Alaska, Delaware, New Hampshire, Montana or Oregon.
bob
<< <i>CPA 's like myself will get to buy more coins under this new legislation.
The additional fees we will earn will be astonishing. >>
Accountants and lawyers are often the prime beneficiaries when the government imposes new taxes and regulations. For those who love more taxes regulations take a look at Europe where middle class people pay 60% or more of their income in taxes. That is our future.
<< <i>CPA 's like myself will get to buy more coins under this new legislation.
The additional fees we will earn will be astonishing. >>
Great! Some of my best clients are CPA's
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>Just an idea here, back in the 80s and 90s many people incorporated their business in Nevada because of the tax benefits and the benefits to do so being offered by Nevada. Saying this all passes what is to stop a seller/retailer from registering their business in a tax exempt state thus making this much less of an issue. Those that are CPAs know the tricks, just like incorporating your marriage to receive extra benefits. >>
Doesn't matter what state you do business in, the new law will allow other states to reach across state lines and prosecute those that don't comply. Wonder what happened to the Supremes' earlier ruling: ""The Court had previously held that under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states may not impose tax responsibility on out of state sellers that do not have a physical presence in the state." Seems this ruling would hold precedence until changed by a new ruling which the Supremes' have declined to give.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left