Options
ICTA is pushing legislation that could have a devistating impact on coin shows in MN
Tomthecoinguy
Posts: 849 ✭✭✭✭
Many of you are aware that in 2013 Minnesota passed a terrible law regulating coin dealers, it pushed a lot of smaller coin dealers out of business, and resulted in a lot of out state dealers refusing to do business with Minnesota Customers.
I was really excited when I first heard that ICTA was going to spend over $100,000 to try and improve the law. My joy turned to horror when I read through the law that ICTA just got introduced into the Minnesota House of Representatives, HF3309. It takes a really bad law, expands it, removes a key exemption, and makes it far worse. The bill has no redeeming values, I do not see anything positive in the law, at least nothing of significance. Here are some of the key changes if HF3309 becomes law.
Also, If you are a member of ICTA please call them and tell them to start fighting for us, and not against us.
You can also call the committee chair, Rep. Joe Hoppe, and tell him that this bill makes the Bullion laws worse and that he should cancel the hearing for this bill. Rep. Hoppe is a good guy that understand how bad the original bill was. We just want him to understand that this bill makes things worse.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/committeemembers.asp?comm=89006
I was really excited when I first heard that ICTA was going to spend over $100,000 to try and improve the law. My joy turned to horror when I read through the law that ICTA just got introduced into the Minnesota House of Representatives, HF3309. It takes a really bad law, expands it, removes a key exemption, and makes it far worse. The bill has no redeeming values, I do not see anything positive in the law, at least nothing of significance. Here are some of the key changes if HF3309 becomes law.
- The scope of the regulation will be expanded to include more products, including rounds, bars, and ingots.
- The scope of the regulation will be expanded to include Palladium as a regulated metal
- A coin dealer will have to continue to register with the Department of Commerce two years after they stop being a coin dealer. I am not kidding here, if the regulation drives you out of business you still have to keep registering and paying their fee for two more years!
- The law removes the exemption for coin shows, limiting it so you have to register after you attend 12 shows in a year. This provision is the worst one in my book, it will destroy the local coin show circuit in Minnesota. Without local dealers the big shows will suffer as well.
- The wording in the law makes the law retro-active. If you reach there dollar threshold (remember they expanded the scope of what was covered)with the your last years sales, you will have to register even if you make no sales after the law goes into effect.
Also, If you are a member of ICTA please call them and tell them to start fighting for us, and not against us.
You can also call the committee chair, Rep. Joe Hoppe, and tell him that this bill makes the Bullion laws worse and that he should cancel the hearing for this bill. Rep. Hoppe is a good guy that understand how bad the original bill was. We just want him to understand that this bill makes things worse.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/committeemembers.asp?comm=89006
0
Comments
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
I am writing to ask you to oppose HF3309, which is coming up for a committee hearing on Tuesday March 29, 2016. I ask that you carefully read this bill, as I’m sure you will see as I do that the bill contains a lot of terrible provisions, and has no redeeming qualities.
This bill is being pushed by the Industry Console on Tangible Assets (ICTA). The organization is comprised mainly of out of state dealers, and very large in-state dealers. I was told first hand by a member of that organization’s executive committee, that the organization does not care about Minnesota Dealers in this proposed legislation, HF3309. This lack of concern for Minnesota Customers and Dealers certainly shows in this bill.
The law will effectively eliminate all Coin Shows in the State of Minnesota.
Coin shows are great for the customer because there are usually between 10 and 100 dealers, which allows consumers to conveniently shop around. We have a very robust coin show circuit in Minnesota, most of the dealers at the shows are small like myself, and are doing this mainly for the fun of it.
In this state there are 3 different monthly coin shows, as well as a number of other coin shows sponsored by different non-profit coin clubs. If you put any kind of limit on the number of coin shows a dealer could attend, it would effectively kill all shows. As small show-only dealers drop shows to get under the 12 show a year limit, the organizers of the shows will not be able to sell enough tables to break even. This would start a downward spiral that would result in no coin shows at all.
When the original law, Statue 80G, was originally passed, I personally talked to some key legislators and was pleased to see that a coin show exemption was included in the law. The 80G exempts "a person who engages only in transactions at occasional trade shows where the consumer is present and the transaction is made at the trade show." I didn't think anything of the term "occasional" when I first read this. It seemed the word "occasional" was put into the law to make sure that someone didn't set up a permanent shop and claim it was a trade show. The word “occasional” is modifying the word “trade show”, so in the current law it does not matter how many coin shows a dealer attends, just so long as the coin show is not set up on a continuous basis. My interpretation of 80G is consistent with the use of “occasional” in other parts of Minnesota law. For example, sales taxes are exempt from items purchased at “occasional garage sales.” In this case an individual can purchase as many items as they want, from as many different garage sales as they like, the “occasional” is a restriction on the person operating the garage sale.
Last August, the Department of Commerce actually tried to bully me into registering claiming that I did more than "occasional" trade shows. It seemed they were targeting me because I publicly criticized them for licensing a dealer that was a notorious stock swindler.
I refused to give in to their bullying, and they eventually backed down. They knew as well as I did that any attempt to enforce a specific number would have been struck down by the courts. There is a well-established constitutional principle that a subject of a law must know ahead of time what they need to do to abide by the law, or the law is null and void.
The industry lobbyists are saying that they just want to clarify the coin show restriction. My question is why would we put in a limit at all? Coin shows have not been a problem in the industry. The coin shows in this state have survived the current confusion in the law. But it is certain that if HF3309 is passed into law, coin shows will not survive in Minnesota. I prefer ambiguity, to certain death.
The Bill will expand the scope of a Regulation that has already limited the choice of Minnesota Consumers and driven Smaller Dealers out of business.
The original Coin bullion dealer law has not worked as intended. Instead of making things safe for consumers, some very reputable firms have refused to do business with Minnesota consumers. At the same time the Department of Commerce has licensed businesses with very questionable histories and business practices. This law will do nothing to rectify this situation. It will make it much worse, because they are increasing the scope of the products covered. The bill is expanding the regulation to include additional bullion products, and the bill is also adding Palladium in the list of precious metals.
The law requires registration for two years even after you quit being a dealer.
In a real slap in the face to Minnesota Dealers that have been driven out of business by 80G, HF3309 now requires that you register, and pay a registration fee for two years after you close up shop. Is there a fiscal note on this? This seems like a tax increase, because you are charging a fee to someone that is no longer in business, and gets no benefit from the Department imposing the fee.
The wording of the law makes the law an unconstitutional ex post facto law, possibly even a bill of attainder.
There is no start date for the new and expanded provisions that take effect in this bill. As a result, if last year a coin dealer met the thresholds in this new law, they would be required to register, even if they never sold a bullion product after the law went into effect. To make matters worse, based on the provision listed above, that person would have to keep registering for the next two years after the law was implemented.
This law is preempted by existing Federal Legislation.
The United States Congress has passed extensive legislation establishing a bullion coin program. Included in that legislation is a provision that gives the Treasury Department sole authority over Bullion Coin Dealers. Specifically, Federal Statute 31 USC § 5112 (p)
(4) Bullion dealers.— The Director of the United States Mint shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a maximum number of reputable, reliable, and responsible dealers are qualified to offer for sale all bullion coins struck and issued by the United States Mint.
This puts the whole Minnesota chapter 80G on very questionable legal ground. HF3309 increases the perception that Minnesota is trying to interfere with Federal legislation. This is because HF3309 is adding Palladium as a covered product, in the same year that Congress has directed the US Mint to start making the first US Palladium coins.
Conclusion
While I am not a fan of Statue 80G, I am even more concerned about HF3309, since it will make 80G much worse. I have asked to testify at Tuesday’s hearing for HF3309, and would be happy to meet with you individually to discuss this bill.
Please reject this bill in committee tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Tom "the coin guy," (I used my real name in the letter to the committee)
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Did any businesses / dealers close because of the law so far?
-------------------------
Andy Lustig"
Sure, I really have no clue how they are going to justify their support for expanding the regulation. Also, will be very interested to see why they think it is a good idea to require someone to register for two years after they leave the business. Now the justification for the coin show change I did hear. They said that the current language is ambiguous, which could lead the Department of Commerce or Attorney General to set the number for whatever they want. My counter to that argument is built into the letter above. If the state tries to restrict how many coin shows I do based on their definition of "occasional" I will take the state to court for enforcing a vague law, and I will win easily base on legal precedence.
Here is my theory on how/why ICTA lost there way on this. I think they started out with good intentions, they really did want to make the law better. The problem they ran into was they needed to get something that the department of Commerce (DOC), and the DFL governor would approve. They botched it when they were negotiating with the DOC, as the DOC got all the changes they wanted to strengthen the law and expand their authority, and ICTA ended up with next to nothing. I think they got some token changes like not having to file some stupid form with the DOC and getting 30 extra days to register, and changing the threshold for registering from $5,000 to $25,000 (no big deal since they increased the scope of what counted towards that threshold as well.) They may also have thought that the coin show change was a win to, but if they did it means they did not understand the current law, because the coin show provision is far better the way it is now.
The DOC really used ICTA to get the changes they wanted to the bill to make it easier for them to enforce. ICTA ended up with nothing, but I think they wanted some changes to pass so they could claim victory and justify why they spent 100,000 on a lobbying effort that came up with nothing. The big problem for ICTA now is they are going to loose credibility with the Committee Members who wanted the law fix and trusted that ICTA was acting in the best interests of the dealers and customers.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
It may be stronger to use the term small business vs small dealer and say there would be addition job losses.
Did any businesses / dealers close because of the law so far?
Good point, thanks for the tip. When the law went into affect, I remember hearing about a lot of dealers going out of business, which would mean lost jobs. But I wouldn't have a count or a list.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
So I am assuming that I will not be able to coins with precious metal in them, unless the dealer is registered with Minnesota.
So they can collect taxes from the dealer, and also the dealer will be forced to give my name to the state so they can collect taxes.
If I'm forced to give my name when buying coins at a coin show, you won't see me anymore. (I always pay in cash.)
I assume that the U.S. Mint is registered with Minnesota.
I can see the state of Minnesota busting down my door, forcing me to tell them what I have in precious metals.
Sorry for the rant, past my bedtime.
Everything is all right!
It looks like they are bumping up the $5K / yr to $25 K/ yr and you can do up to 12 shows per year without registering.
Yes, they are bumping it from 5K to 25K, but 25K is still nothing. That is especially true since they a broadening what products are covered under that 25K.
Previously there was no defined limit on the number of coin shows you could do. With a limit of 12 it will kill all the coin shows in Minnesota. Dealers will drop their shows to 12, then coin shows will go out of business, and their will be no shows for the dealers to do.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
This law is preempted by existing Federal Legislation.
The United States Congress has passed extensive legislation establishing a bullion coin program. Included in that legislation is a provision that gives the Treasury Department sole authority over Bullion Coin Dealers. Specifically, Federal Statute 31 USC § 5112 (p)
(4) Bullion dealers.— The Director of the United States Mint shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a maximum number of reputable, reliable, and responsible dealers are qualified to offer for sale all bullion coins struck and issued by the United States Mint.
This puts the whole Minnesota chapter 80G on very questionable legal ground. HF3309 increases the perception that Minnesota is trying to interfere with Federal legislation. This is because HF3309 is adding Palladium as a covered product, in the same year that Congress has directed the US Mint to start making the first US Palladium coins.
Federal legislation you reference is only in place to ensure a maximum number of authorized dealers to buy directly from the mint. It does not grant the US Mint any authority over third party sellers who subsequently buy from these "authorized" dealers and then sell to the general public. This federal legislation does not (and should not) over ride a state's right to regulate commerce within the state.
This incorrect portion of your argument distracts from the validity of your remaining argument.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
This law is preempted by existing Federal Legislation.
The United States Congress has passed extensive legislation establishing a bullion coin program. Included in that legislation is a provision that gives the Treasury Department sole authority over Bullion Coin Dealers. Specifically, Federal Statute 31 USC § 5112 (p)
(4) Bullion dealers.— The Director of the United States Mint shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a maximum number of reputable, reliable, and responsible dealers are qualified to offer for sale all bullion coins struck and issued by the United States Mint.
This puts the whole Minnesota chapter 80G on very questionable legal ground. HF3309 increases the perception that Minnesota is trying to interfere with Federal legislation. This is because HF3309 is adding Palladium as a covered product, in the same year that Congress has directed the US Mint to start making the first US Palladium coins.
Federal legislation you reference is only in place to ensure a maximum number of authorized dealers to buy directly from the mint. It does not grant the US Mint any authority over third party sellers who subsequently buy from these "authorized" dealers and then sell to the general public. This federal legislation does not (and should not) over ride a state's right to regulate commerce within the state.
This incorrect portion of your argument distracts from the validity of your remaining argument.
You are just wrong on this one. I have already talked to a number of lawyers that say the law would be struck down under preemption, if it was challenged in court. This includes a lawyer that had already gotten a state law struck down under this principle.
The courts will strike down a law that acts as an impediment to any federal legislation. In this case the clear intent of the federal law is to expand the number of dealers that can handle US Mint bullion products.
Also, I felt it was important to make the committee aware of this provision in Federal law because when the law was originally going through, a committee member asked a member of the Attroney Generals Staff if their was any Federal statutes dealing with coin bullion dealers. She incorrectly told the committee that there were none.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
This law is preempted by existing Federal Legislation.
The United States Congress has passed extensive legislation establishing a bullion coin program. Included in that legislation is a provision that gives the Treasury Department sole authority over Bullion Coin Dealers. Specifically, Federal Statute 31 USC § 5112 (p)
(4) Bullion dealers.— The Director of the United States Mint shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a maximum number of reputable, reliable, and responsible dealers are qualified to offer for sale all bullion coins struck and issued by the United States Mint.
This puts the whole Minnesota chapter 80G on very questionable legal ground. HF3309 increases the perception that Minnesota is trying to interfere with Federal legislation. This is because HF3309 is adding Palladium as a covered product, in the same year that Congress has directed the US Mint to start making the first US Palladium coins.
Federal legislation you reference is only in place to ensure a maximum number of authorized dealers to buy directly from the mint. It does not grant the US Mint any authority over third party sellers who subsequently buy from these "authorized" dealers and then sell to the general public. This federal legislation does not (and should not) over ride a state's right to regulate commerce within the state.
This incorrect portion of your argument distracts from the validity of your remaining argument.
I should also add that this is talking about all the dealers not just the 11 authorized purchases. That is clear from the legislation.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
This law is preempted by existing Federal Legislation.
The United States Congress has passed extensive legislation establishing a bullion coin program. Included in that legislation is a provision that gives the Treasury Department sole authority over Bullion Coin Dealers. Specifically, Federal Statute 31 USC § 5112 (p)
(4) Bullion dealers.— The Director of the United States Mint shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a maximum number of reputable, reliable, and responsible dealers are qualified to offer for sale all bullion coins struck and issued by the United States Mint.
This puts the whole Minnesota chapter 80G on very questionable legal ground. HF3309 increases the perception that Minnesota is trying to interfere with Federal legislation. This is because HF3309 is adding Palladium as a covered product, in the same year that Congress has directed the US Mint to start making the first US Palladium coins.
Federal legislation you reference is only in place to ensure a maximum number of authorized dealers to buy directly from the mint. It does not grant the US Mint any authority over third party sellers who subsequently buy from these "authorized" dealers and then sell to the general public. This federal legislation does not (and should not) over ride a state's right to regulate commerce within the state.
This incorrect portion of your argument distracts from the validity of your remaining argument.
I should also add that this is talking about all the dealers not just the 11 authorized purchases. That is clear from the legislation.
It's talking about the 11 resellers of mint bullion products. The legislation ensures that the mint establish strict requirements to become one of the authorized purchasers in order to protect the buyers downstream. Mint director's authority is not extended downstream.
You are incorrect in your assumption that the director of the Mint has any authority outside of what the mint directly sells to its authorized bullion coin purchasers. I resell US bullion coins and I can assure you the director of the US mint has no authority over my efforts. Using the assumption that the mint director has such authority over any and all dealers/resellers who buy bullion coins from the limited number of authorized mint bullion purchasers weakens your battle with the Minnesota law. The legislation you quote is in place to make sure that dealers authorized to buy US bullion coins directly from the US mint for resell in the marketplace are "reputable, reliable, and responsible."
Congress did not put the US mint director in charge of everyone selling US bullion coins - only those authorized to buy directly from the mint. This is why the "requirements for becoming an authorized purchaser" are not the "requirements for anyone selling US bullion coins."
Re-evaluate your interpretation of the legislation as well as your other resources. You want to fight this battle with the correct information.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
It's talking about the 11 resellers of mint bullion products. The legislation ensures that the mint establish strict requirements to become one of the authorized purchasers in order to protect the buyers downstream. Mint director's authority is not extended downstream.
You are incorrect in your assumption that the director of the Mint has any authority outside of what the mint directly sells to its authorized bullion coin purchasers. I resell US bullion coins and I can assure you the director of the US mint has no authority over my efforts. Using the assumption that the mint director has such authority over any and all dealers/resellers who buy bullion coins from the limited number of authorized mint bullion purchasers weakens your battle with the Minnesota law. The legislation you quote is in place to make sure that dealers authorized to buy US bullion coins directly from the US mint for resell in the marketplace are "reputable, reliable, and responsible."
Congress did not put the US mint director in charge of everyone selling US bullion coins - only those authorized to buy directly from the mint. This is why the "requirements for becoming an authorized purchaser" are not the "requirements for anyone selling US bullion coins."
Re-evaluate your interpretation of the legislation as well as your other resources. You want to fight this battle with the correct information.
I think you should review all the federal coin legislation. The federal statutes does not deal with the 11 authorized purchasers, does not even mention them. It is also important to note that this legislation was passed after the authorized purchases program was already established.
This law shows the intent of congress to knock down barriers to people purchasing mint products. The Minnesota law is clearly interfering with the intent of congress and is therefor preempted.
I would love to ask the Department of Commerce why they have not asked the US Mint to register. Clearly they would be required to do so under the law.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I think you should review all the federal coin legislation. The federal statutes does not deal with the 11 authorized purchasers, does not even mention them. It is also important to note that this legislation was passed after the authorized purchases program was already established.
This law shows the intent of congress to knock down barriers to people purchasing mint products. The Minnesota law is clearly interfering with the intent of congress and is therefor preempted.
I would love to ask the Department of Commerce why they have not asked the US Mint to register. Clearly they would be required to do so under the law.
The legislation you quote:
"(4)Bullion dealers.—
The Director of the United States Mint shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a maximum number of reputable, reliable, and responsible dealers are qualified to offer for sale all bullion coins struck and issued by the United States Mint."
is exactly what deals with the authorized purchaser program. While it does not call it out by name it is what requires the director to create and manage such a program.
Congress tasked the director with making sure that the mint's buyers (and initial resellers) of bullion products be reputable, reliable, and responsible. Note that this includes only the bulk bullion items and not collector versions of bullion coins that anyone can purchase directly from the mint. The director created the "authorized purchaser" program so that only a limited number of well vetted buyers could purchase the bulk bullion products. The authorized purchaser program enables the mint to fulfill congress's mandate without having to vet every bullion reseller in the world. The mint's responsibility to congress concerning it bullion buyers ends with the authorized purchasers. Anyone selling US bullion coins downstream answers to other jurisdictions, including the State of Minnesota.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
I think you should review all the federal coin legislation. The federal statutes does not deal with the 11 authorized purchasers, does not even mention them. It is also important to note that this legislation was passed after the authorized purchases program was already established.
This law shows the intent of congress to knock down barriers to people purchasing mint products. The Minnesota law is clearly interfering with the intent of congress and is therefor preempted.
I would love to ask the Department of Commerce why they have not asked the US Mint to register. Clearly they would be required to do so under the law.
The legislation you quote:
"(4)Bullion dealers.—
The Director of the United States Mint shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a maximum number of reputable, reliable, and responsible dealers are qualified to offer for sale all bullion coins struck and issued by the United States Mint."
is exactly what deals with the authorized purchaser program. While it does not call it out by name it is what requires the director to create and manage such a program.
That is just not true. This law was passed in 2005 as part of the Dollar coin act of 2005, the AP program has been around since the dawn of the Silver eagle in 1986. Please read this whole act, I think if you do it will be clear they are not talking about the AP program.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I think you should review all the federal coin legislation. The federal statutes does not deal with the 11 authorized purchasers, does not even mention them. It is also important to note that this legislation was passed after the authorized purchases program was already established.
This law shows the intent of congress to knock down barriers to people purchasing mint products. The Minnesota law is clearly interfering with the intent of congress and is therefor preempted.
I would love to ask the Department of Commerce why they have not asked the US Mint to register. Clearly they would be required to do so under the law.
The legislation you quote:
"(4)Bullion dealers.—
The Director of the United States Mint shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a maximum number of reputable, reliable, and responsible dealers are qualified to offer for sale all bullion coins struck and issued by the United States Mint."
is exactly what deals with the authorized purchaser program. While it does not call it out by name it is what requires the director to create and manage such a program.
That is just not true. This law was passed in 2005 as part of the Dollar coin act of 2005, the AP program has been around since the dawn of the Silver eagle in 1986. Please read this whole act, I think if you do it will be clear they are not talking about the AP program.
The law was updated in 2005. Congressional oversight and law governing US mint operations has been around a whole lot longer. Note that the 2005 law also includes many requirements that were law well before 2005. One of those requirements was that the director "screen" buyers of the bullion products. The mint created the authorized purchaser program to help them meet that requirement.
Tom, I'm not gonna argue the point with you any longer. At least be better prepared and better informed when you argue it with the State of Minnesota.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Re: Patriot Act, Hobby Protection Act, etc.,
We are them, and they are us, too.
I think you should review all the federal coin legislation. The federal statutes does not deal with the 11 authorized purchasers, does not even mention them. It is also important to note that this legislation was passed after the authorized purchases program was already established.
This law shows the intent of congress to knock down barriers to people purchasing mint products. The Minnesota law is clearly interfering with the intent of congress and is therefor preempted.
I would love to ask the Department of Commerce why they have not asked the US Mint to register. Clearly they would be required to do so under the law.
The legislation you quote:
"(4)Bullion dealers.—
The Director of the United States Mint shall take all steps necessary to ensure that a maximum number of reputable, reliable, and responsible dealers are qualified to offer for sale all bullion coins struck and issued by the United States Mint."
is exactly what deals with the authorized purchaser program. While it does not call it out by name it is what requires the director to create and manage such a program.
Congress tasked the director with making sure that the mint's buyers (and initial resellers) of bullion products be reputable, reliable, and responsible. Note that this includes only the bulk bullion items and not collector versions of bullion coins that anyone can purchase directly from the mint. The director created the "authorized purchaser" program so that only a limited number of well vetted buyers could purchase the bulk bullion products. The authorized purchaser program enables the mint to fulfill congress's mandate without having to vet every bullion reseller in the world. The mint's responsibility to congress concerning it bullion buyers ends with the authorized purchasers. Anyone selling US bullion coins downstream answers to other jurisdictions, including the State of Minnesota.
You are re-writing the legislation. You are putting in words that are not there. Got get ready for the hearing.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
I see improvement.
-raises the requirement from $5k to $25k at which point registration as a dealer is required.
-the surety bond requirement has been completely eliminated for transactions totaling less than $25k in the previous 12 months.
-continues to exempt sellers who sell at 12 or less trade shows per year, garage sales, auctioneers, estate sales.
-now covers all bullion sales, dealer registration fee remains at $25 yr.
Obviously the law is written to protect Minnesota consumers. It sets the standards for doing bullion business in Minnesota. You and I know that there are bad bullion dealers that take advantage of the consumer, especially in the area of telemarketing. It does not "force out" the small dealer, it just requires him to register, pay the $25 and be honest just as it does the big dealer.
I personally don't like more regulation. But if consumers are getting burned and need protection, this law will help to protect them. It does not show any favoritism to the big dealers and exempts the small guy. ICTA did not sell anyone out; they stepped in to try to make the law better than it was. Kudos to ICTA.
As an out of state seller, will I register? No, I will avoid selling to a Minnesota address as long as I am able to sell in other states that do not have the requirements that Minnesota has imposed. If I were a Minnesota bullion consumer I would welcome the Minnesota dealer requirements.
Minnesota will be but the first to take such action to protect its consumers. Look for other states to follow, not because of bad policy, but because of bad dealers. What will suck for the honest dealer is paying a registration fee in multiple states.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
(1) At the federal level and with most state courts of last resort, it has been held that the ex post facto clause only applies to criminal legislation and not civil legislation;
(2) At the federal level and with most state courts of last resort, the bill of attainder clause requires that the bill be instituted as "punishment" and the purpose of the law is not to punish but to regulate and protect consumers (even if it is deeply misguided); and
(3) I am curious as to why you believe the federal statute necessarily pre-empts the state statute. There are a number of instances where both the federal government and state government can speak on the same subject matter. Pre-emption occurs (1) when the statute expressly states that it pre-empts state law; (2) where the federal law squarely conflicts with the state law; and (3) where the federal law has "occupied the field" (to borrow from SCOTUS) so extensively as to leave no room for the states. I don't see where any of these apply.
I agree with you that this is a horrible law that must go, but I want to see you be successful in doing so. I am not sure the legal arguments you have made will cut it. If there is ever a lawsuit filed as a result of this awful law, I do hope that it is carefully worded and does not include doomed-to-fail claims that distract courts away from more viable arguments.
Proposed new Minnesota bill
It does not "force out" the small dealer, it just requires him to register, pay the $25 and be honest just as it does the big dealer.
So bid dealers are all honest?
And all added regulations are more cumbersome for the smaller business's then the larger ones. IMO
Proposed new Minnesota bill
It does not "force out" the small dealer, it just requires him to register, pay the $25 and be honest just as it does the big dealer.
So bid dealers are all honest?
And all added regulations are more cumbersome for the smaller business's then the larger ones. IMO
You misread what I said. I said it equally forces both to be honest. Regulations are cumbersome, especially when not needed. It appears Minnesota sees a need to protect consumers. Blame the dishonest bullion sellers. If were just a matter of collecting fees, those fees would be much greater than $25.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Proposed new Minnesota bill
It does not "force out" the small dealer, it just requires him to register, pay the $25 and be honest just as it does the big dealer.
So bid dealers are all honest?
And all added regulations are more cumbersome for the smaller business's then the larger ones. IMO
It's true that more paperwork is costly. There's no problem to fix , when the golden goose dies. It just starts over and it's worth what someone is willing to pay that day, for it.
This is why God made refineries.
Proposed new Minnesota bill
I see improvement.
-raises the requirement from $5k to $25k at which point registration as a dealer is required.
-the surety bond requirement has been completely eliminated for transactions totaling less than $25k in the previous 12 months.
-continues to exempt sellers who sell at 12 or less trade shows per year, garage sales, auctioneers, estate sales.
-now covers all bullion sales, dealer registration fee remains at $25 yr.
Obviously the law is written to protect Minnesota consumers. It sets the standards for doing bullion business in Minnesota. You and I know that there are bad bullion dealers that take advantage of the consumer, especially in the area of telemarketing. It does not "force out" the small dealer, it just requires him to register, pay the $25 and be honest just as it does the big dealer.
I personally don't like more regulation. But if consumers are getting burned and need protection, this law will help to protect them. It does not show any favoritism to the big dealers and exempts the small guy. ICTA did not sell anyone out; they stepped in to try to make the law better than it was. Kudos to ICTA.
As an out of state seller, will I register? No, I will avoid selling to a Minnesota address as long as I am able to sell in other states that do not have the requirements that Minnesota has imposed. If I were a Minnesota bullion consumer I would welcome the Minnesota dealer requirements.
Minnesota will be but the first to take such action to protect its consumers. Look for other states to follow, not because of bad policy, but because of bad dealers. What will suck for the honest dealer is paying a registration fee in multiple states.
I think you are missing the biggest problem. The way the bill is written, selling any coins with any silver or gold requires registration per the definitions subdivision 2. This means no one can sell any silver or gold coins to anyone in Minnesota via the internet without being registered (Not just bullion). This is ridiculous the way it is written and will increase the cost to all consumers across the state. Your statement that you will not sell to anyone in Minnesota and will not register is exactly why this bill should not pass.
No where that I can see in this bill does it exempt selling of collector coins containing gold or silver. This is a huge oversight in my opinion and makes the whole bill junk. In addition, the bill does not allow for small out of state selling of collector coins or bullion via the internet. This only hurts the consumer because it restricts competition.
Personally, I think the bill does not apply to out of state internet sellers of bullion or collector coins because the Federal Government per the Constitution has the right to regulate interstate commerce (Article 1, Section 8) not the state of Minnesota. Since I don't live in Minnesota, I don't have to follow a Minnesota law that has not been passed by our Federal Government that relates to interstate commerce. Can someone explain to me how I am wrong on this?
Unfortunately the overall bill passed and was moved on to the "the register" I'm thinking that is the floor of the house but not sure. So it was over all a lose for me, but this is just the first step in the legislative process.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
http://wdoc.house.leg.state.mn.us/leg/LS89/HF3309.0.pdf">Proposed new Minnesota bill
I see improvement.
-raises the requirement from $5k to $25k at which point registration as a dealer is required.
-the surety bond requirement has been completely eliminated for transactions totaling less than $25k in the previous 12 months.
-continues to exempt sellers who sell at 12 or less trade shows per year, garage sales, auctioneers, estate sales.
-now covers all bullion sales, dealer registration fee remains at $25 yr.
Obviously the law is written to protect Minnesota consumers. It sets the standards for doing bullion business in Minnesota. You and I know that there are bad bullion dealers that take advantage of the consumer, especially in the area of telemarketing. It does not "force out" the small dealer, it just requires him to register, pay the $25 and be honest just as it does the big dealer.
I personally don't like more regulation. But if consumers are getting burned and need protection, this law will help to protect them. It does not show any favoritism to the big dealers and exempts the small guy. ICTA did not sell anyone out; they stepped in to try to make the law better than it was. Kudos to ICTA.
As an out of state seller, will I register? No, I will avoid selling to a Minnesota address as long as I am able to sell in other states that do not have the requirements that Minnesota has imposed. If I were a Minnesota bullion consumer I would welcome the Minnesota dealer requirements.
Minnesota will be but the first to take such action to protect its consumers. Look for other states to follow, not because of bad policy, but because of bad dealers. What will suck for the honest dealer is paying a registration fee in multiple states.
The $25 fee is no big deal, unless a lot of states do this, then it becomes onerous.
But I think you are forgetting the requirement of a surety bond (and that will cost a LOT more than $25), plus the required security investigations for 10 years back for every employee who in any way interacts with a customer (and each investigation will cost well more than $25). So the total is probably closer to $1,000 than $25.
And if you check who has registered, guess what you will find? A lot of telemarketers! They're the companies who have the sales volume to support all of these costs, not the small dealer. At a cost of $1,000 to do business in a state that represents about 2% of the nation's GDP, I will pass.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
I never said I like the idea of this regulation. I only said that it appears ICTA, who apparently cannot help to make it go away, did manage to make it somewhat better.
My ebay auctions have and will continue to carry a notice that I do not ship gold or silver to any Minnesota address because of this regulation.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Proposed new Minnesota bill
I see improvement.
-raises the requirement from $5k to $25k at which point registration as a dealer is required.
This is pretty insubstantial, 25K is really nothing in this business, I could not imagine any dealers this would help, especially with the increase in the scope of what products are covered. When I was originally talking to an ICTA person about them trying to get a change, they wanted 100K, then they went for 50K, then they said they still could not get the Department of Commerce to agree to it, so they dropped it to 25k. At 25k might-as-well not had any change.
The 25K threshold is really not a change to the bond level at all, since you don't have to register if you are less than that. The bond level is one of the things that is going to make this law worse for the small dealers. With the expanded products that are covered by the law, the expansion will push up the dealers bonding requirement.
This is not at all a positive, but is the worst thing in the bill. Listing the other things such as the garage sales, auctioneers, and estate sales are not relevant to this discussion, because their is no change from the previous bill. On the coin show this is the most upsetting thing in the new bill. The previous bill exempted coin shows, this new bill puts a limit on it. The limit will destroy coin shows in this state. as I pointed out earlier. I have a sense that you are in some way affiliated with ICTA. If you are, please do what you can to get them to remove the limits on coin shows.
Again this is not a change in the bill in any way, so ICTA cannot get credit for this. It is also important to note that the bill also says, "(b)The commissioner based on the cost of processing registrations, may adjust the registration fee on an annual basis as needed" I am not registered but the dealers I talked to seem to indicate that the fee is substantially more than $25.
There is a lot more than the fee is higher than that, there is bonding and paperwork requirements. It is also important to note that if the DOC decides to investigate you, for whatever reason, they can bill you for all the investigation weather they find you did anything wrong or not.
I understand the tough negotiating position that ICTA, trying to improve the law and still get the buy in from DOC, but they got the changes that really aren't that meaningful, by giving the DOC what they wanted on the coin shows. I guess you can call it what you want, but I must say I am very disappointed in ICTA.
If you are a good an honest dealer, which I have every reason to believe is true. Wouldn't Minnesota customers be at a lose because they have one less honest dealer to deal with?
It is ashame that ICTA did not go down the road of a constitutional challenge. That would have stopped all other states from regulating coin dealers as well.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
A few legal points to consider:
(1) At the federal level and with most state courts of last resort, it has been held that the ex post facto clause only applies to criminal legislation and not civil legislation;
There are criminal provisions in the Minnesota coin dealer law. Although I think a lot of my ex post facto concerns are fixed with the latest amendment, so the point is moot now.
The bill of attainder could have come in if they made someone register, that was not a coin dealer at the time the law was put into place. the "punishment" would be the fees and penalties they could impose. Again, I think the authors amendment fixed that since you do not have to register once you stop being a coin dealer.
There is also preemption when a state law interferes with the objectives of a federal law. There is a reasonable case to be made for a field preemption as well. There are extensive federal law relating to the manufacture of coins. Shoot the power to coin money and regulate the value of it is even in the constitution.
Thanks, I need all the help I can get.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.
Yes, PITA for the volume coin dealers selling or shipping to anyone in Minnesota. However, the internet seller of less than $25k in the past 12 months to anyone in Minnesota is exempt. This is an improvement, thanks to ICTA, of the earlier version of $5k.
I never said I like the idea of this regulation. I only said that it appears ICTA, who apparently cannot help to make it go away, did manage to make it somewhat better.
My ebay auctions have and will continue to carry a notice that I do not ship gold or silver to any Minnesota address because of this regulation.
derryb, I am assuming you don't sell more than $25,000 to Minnesota so why won't you ship to Minnesota if you are exempt?
Very informative thread!...I hope it works out for the OP...I still can't figure out why people live in Minnesota???
Free ice cubes from October-April ?
This is not true.
Nearly two years ago after consulting with ICTA Staff and counsel I set up the MN action committee headed by Philip Diehl (former director of The United States Mint) and Gary Adkins (a Minnesota coin dealer of nearly 50 years) plus any other dealer’s local or national, small or large who were willing to work on the current legislation in question. Those interested did not even have to be ICTA members although membership is obviously encouraged.
ICTA’s staff has been willing to communicate with any interested party regarding this issue and anything pertinent to the numismatic industry as a whole. This committee and our staff has put hundreds of hours and dozens of airline trips to meet with the proper authorities to produce legislation that will eliminate or reduce some of the worst burdens of the Minnesota Bullion Coin Dealers Law. If fact ICTA has spent more in time and money on this single state issue than on any other previous state issue ever. We have communicated what we are doing every step of the way, and we’ve met with any dealer who was interested.
Unfortunately, a few people are spreading false information about HF 3309. Here are the false claims we’ve seen in emails and on message boards:
HF 3309 removes the exemption for coin shows, limiting it so you have to register after you attend 12 shows in a year.
No, it doesn’t. The current law exempts dealers that do business at “occasional” coin shows, and it does not exclude out-of-state coin shows from the count. No one knows what “occasional” means, so no one knows whether they’re exempt. The Department of Commerce is left to decide what “occasional” means. Who wants that?
We pressed DOC to increase the number of shows allowed and to write that number into the law. HF 3309 raises the exemption to 12 shows a year and excludes out-of-state coin shows.
HF 3309 requires coin dealers to continue to register for two years after they stop being a coin dealer, and the bill is retroactive. If you reach the dollar threshold with your last year’s sales, you will have to register even if you make no sales after the law goes into effect.
HF 3309 eliminates the requirement now in the law for dealers to register for two years after they leave the business. HF 3309 is not retroactive, and it makes several improvements in current law:
• HF 3309 raises the registration threshold from $5,000 to $25,000 (a major benefit to small dealers).
• It eliminates the requirement to keep a 12-month rolling total of your transactions and sets the period as July 1 through June 30 of each year (current law is a bookkeeping nightmare especially for smaller dealers).
• Under the law today, once a dealer is required to register, they must continue to register every year, even if they have no sales or purchases in a year, and they must continue to register for two years after they leave the business. HF 3309 eliminates the requirement to register after leaving the business.
• HF 3309 increases the time dealers have to file their registrations from 30 days to 45 days.
HB 3309 expands the scope of regulation by including palladium as a regulated metal.
No, it doesn’t. The law already covers “other precious metals”, which includes palladium.
HF 3309 expands the scope of regulation to include more products, including rounds, bars, and ingots.
HF 3309 clarifies legislative intent to include these products. We think the number of dealers who sell rounds, bars, and ingots, but not coins, are few to none. The law already covers you if you sell these products.
Federal law already regulates bullion dealers and preempts state regulation of dealers.
No, it doesn’t. The provision of federal law cited to support this claim authorizes the Mint to establish its Authorized Purchaser network for distribution of American Eagles and other bullion (not numismatic) coins. It has nothing to do with the regulation of coin dealers, and it does not preempt states from regulating coin dealers.
Respectfully submitted
Harry Miller
Chairman Industry Council for Tangible Assets
President Millers’ Mint Ltd
This is not true.
Nearly two years ago after consulting with ICTA Staff and counsel I set up the MN action committee headed by Philip Diehl (former director of The United States Mint) and Gary Adkins (a Minnesota coin dealer of nearly 50 years) plus any other dealer’s local or national, small or large who were willing to work on the current legislation in question. Those interested did not even have to be ICTA members although membership is obviously encouraged.
ICTA’s staff has been willing to communicate with any interested party regarding this issue and anything pertinent to the numismatic industry as a whole. This committee and our staff has put hundreds of hours and dozens of airline trips to meet with the proper authorities to produce legislation that will eliminate or reduce some of the worst burdens of the Minnesota Bullion Coin Dealers Law. If fact ICTA has spent more in time and money on this single state issue than on any other previous state issue ever. We have communicated what we are doing every step of the way, and we’ve met with any dealer who was interested.
Unfortunately, a few people are spreading false information about HF 3309. Here are the false claims we’ve seen in emails and on message boards:
HF 3309 removes the exemption for coin shows, limiting it so you have to register after you attend 12 shows in a year.
No, it doesn’t. The current law exempts dealers that do business at “occasional” coin shows, and it does not exclude out-of-state coin shows from the count. No one knows what “occasional” means, so no one knows whether they’re exempt. The Department of Commerce is left to decide what “occasional” means. Who wants that?
We pressed DOC to increase the number of shows allowed and to write that number into the law. HF 3309 raises the exemption to 12 shows a year and excludes out-of-state coin shows.
HF 3309 requires coin dealers to continue to register for two years after they stop being a coin dealer, and the bill is retroactive. If you reach the dollar threshold with your last year’s sales, you will have to register even if you make no sales after the law goes into effect.
HF 3309 eliminates the requirement now in the law for dealers to register for two years after they leave the business. HF 3309 is not retroactive, and it makes several improvements in current law:
• HF 3309 raises the registration threshold from $5,000 to $25,000 (a major benefit to small dealers).
• It eliminates the requirement to keep a 12-month rolling total of your transactions and sets the period as July 1 through June 30 of each year (current law is a bookkeeping nightmare especially for smaller dealers).
• Under the law today, once a dealer is required to register, they must continue to register every year, even if they have no sales or purchases in a year, and they must continue to register for two years after they leave the business. HF 3309 eliminates the requirement to register after leaving the business.
• HF 3309 increases the time dealers have to file their registrations from 30 days to 45 days.
HB 3309 expands the scope of regulation by including palladium as a regulated metal.
No, it doesn’t. The law already covers “other precious metals”, which includes palladium.
HF 3309 expands the scope of regulation to include more products, including rounds, bars, and ingots.
HF 3309 clarifies legislative intent to include these products. We think the number of dealers who sell rounds, bars, and ingots, but not coins, are few to none. The law already covers you if you sell these products.
Federal law already regulates bullion dealers and preempts state regulation of dealers.
No, it doesn’t. The provision of federal law cited to support this claim authorizes the Mint to establish its Authorized Purchaser network for distribution of American Eagles and other bullion (not numismatic) coins. It has nothing to do with the regulation of coin dealers, and it does not preempt states from regulating coin dealers.
Respectfully submitted
Harry Miller
Chairman Industry Consul for Tangible Assets
President Millers’ Mint Ltd
Yes, PITA for the volume coin dealers selling or shipping to anyone in Minnesota. However, the internet seller of less than $25k in the past 12 months to anyone in Minnesota is exempt. This is an improvement, thanks to ICTA, of the earlier version of $5k.
I never said I like the idea of this regulation. I only said that it appears ICTA, who apparently cannot help to make it go away, did manage to make it somewhat better.
My ebay auctions have and will continue to carry a notice that I do not ship gold or silver to any Minnesota address because of this regulation.
derryb, I am assuming you don't sell more than $25,000 to Minnesota so why won't you ship to Minnesota if you are exempt?
Because I would still have to play their game of keeping records of what I do ship to a Minnesota address and be prepared to defend myself against the state. Why bother when I can sell in 49 other states without the hassle or the liability.
This success of this law will dictate its appearance in other states. Its appearance in other states will be preceededed by claims of how "successful" it has been in Minnesota. The only way to make it unsuccessful is to have the bullion buyers of Minnesota become outraged because they cannot find sellers who will take their out of state purchase orders. I urge all sellers of PM coins and bullion to boycott selling to Minnesota addresses. I urge all ebay sellers of silver, gold, paladium and platinum coins and bullion to do as I have done and clearly state in their ebay item descriptions that they do not ship to Minnesota addresses because of this law.
I borrowed this statement from a fellow ebay seller: "NOTE: Due to the new Minnesota Bullion Coin Dealer law restrictions, we do not sell or deliver any gold, silver, paladium or platinum coins to Minnesota addresses. We refuse to pay their license fees and to become subject to laws in a state where we are not even located. Be sure to thank your Minnesota state officials for making it difficult to sell bullion coins to Minnesota residents. Hopefully the reduction in seller competition in Minnesota will not result in you paying higher prices" I urge my fellow ebay coin sellers to do the same.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Do you happen to know if 'precious metals' include copper and nickel?
I do question Minnesota's ability to apply its laws across state lines. I can understand them having jurisdiction over sellers located in Minnesota and maybe even out of state sellers who reach out to Minnesota buyers with either a phone call or a mailed flyer. An ebay seller does not contact a Minnesota buyer, the buyer finds the seller on the internet.
Has ICTA looked into the jurisdiction issue?
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
I have updated the link in my earlier post, but some of the links to it subsequently quoted are no longer valid. Use the above link.
And, contrary to the title and subtitle of this thread, it appears ICTA is not pushing or expanding the legislation. They are helping to clarify and limit it.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
The bill has been amended. Perhaps the current version is not online yet. These "Author's Amendments" were submitted by ITCA and the MN DOC and should be reflected in an updated version of the bill online soon.
1- copper and nickel are not precious metals.
2- ICTA did extensive research on the legal challange issue. yes it would more than likely be valid but the estimated cost of that challange is in the Millions of $. how would we raise that kind of fund when 1000's of dealers won't even pay $300 annual dues.
3-The most current version is not yet online. there is a 72 hour delay in the system.
4-Jurisdiction is a big issue and the problem is as in #2 money to fight it.
5-ICTA has worked hard to find mutual ground where the law could be made more dealer friendly through better definitions and easier compliance while keeping the regulation that law enforcement requires.
6- As an added comment. Last week the governor of Indiana signed into law a sales tax exemption on coins, bullion and currency. This was largely accomplished in cooperation with local dealers and ICTA. our staff and some executive board members flew there and testified, along with presenting white papers and lobbying efforts.
7- Talking to lawyers without all the facts and cash to back it up is like talking to a mirror.
unfortunately in today's world we cannot always have things as we wish we must compromise according to the circumstances at hand.
The above are my personal thoughts and not the formal opinion of ICTA
The bill has been amended. Perhaps the current version is not online yet. These "Author's Amendments" were submitted by ITCA and the MN DOC and should be reflected in an updated version of the bill online soon.
link is to official site with the changes lined out. Updated final copy not yet available.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Thanks for coming on the board to address this issue.
I still don't understand if collector coins containing 90% silver or gold are part of this bill (Such as a 1924 Gold Double Eagle). From the way it reads it sure sounds like they are part of the bill. Can you clarify this for me?
Secondly, how can the State of Minnesota enforce a state law to an eBay seller located in another state that doesn't have a physical presence in the state? Isn't that interstate commerce regulated by the Federal Government? It seems this bill has nothing to do with stopping out of state bullion dealers from selling via the internet to Minnesota customers.
Thanks in advance for your reply.
Secondly, how can the State of Minnesota enforce a state law to an eBay seller located in another state that doesn't have a physical presence in the state? Isn't that interstate commerce regulated by the Federal Government? It seems this bill has nothing to do with stopping out of state bullion dealers from selling via the internet to Minnesota customers.
They think that they can. From the legislation:
"Bullion coin Dealer. (a) Subject to the exceptions in paragraph (b), a
"bullion coin dealer" means any person who buys, sells, solicits, or markets bullion coins
products or investments in bullion coins products to consumers and is either:
(1) is incorporated, registered, domiciled, or otherwise located in this state, or who;
(2) has a dealer representative located in this state; or
(3) does business with a consumer domiciled, residing, or otherwise located in this
state at a business location in this state, or delivers or ships a bullion product or makes
a payment to a consumer at an address in this state, unless the transaction occurs when
the consumer is at a business location outside of this state."
I would hope that a judge will rule against this lack of jurisdiction. This is the angle to defeat at least the bill's affect on out of state sellers.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
You might have heard that out-of-state and big Minnesota dealers are trying to pass a new law in Minnesota (HF3309) that would do all kinds of terrible things to Minnesota coin dealers.
This is not true.
Nearly two years ago after consulting with ICTA Staff and counsel I set up the MN action committee headed by Philip Diehl (former director of The United States Mint) and Gary Adkins (a Minnesota coin dealer of nearly 50 years) plus any other dealer’s local or national, small or large who were willing to work on the current legislation in question. Those interested did not even have to be ICTA members although membership is obviously encouraged.
ICTA’s staff has been willing to communicate with any interested party regarding this issue and anything pertinent to the numismatic industry as a whole. This committee and our staff has put hundreds of hours and dozens of airline trips to meet with the proper authorities to produce legislation that will eliminate or reduce some of the worst burdens of the Minnesota Bullion Coin Dealers Law. If fact ICTA has spent more in time and money on this single state issue than on any other previous state issue ever. We have communicated what we are doing every step of the way, and we’ve met with any dealer who was interested.
When this law was first enacted I sent numerous communications to members of ICTA with my concerns about this legislation. I would have been more than happy to serve on that committee. I first got an inkling of the proposed changes a few weeks ago, from Gary Adkins I explained to him my concerns about local coin shows, let he was dismissive. His response was that "no it wont" and didn't even take the time to listen or understand my concerns. I also sent a strongly worded e-mail to Kathy McFadden, asking her to have one of the ICTA lobbyist contact me so I could express my concerns. I waited to the day of the hearing for HF3309, to open up this thread. I did not want to, but I was not being heard and felt I had no open, because the fait of our local coin shows are at stake.
OK, I think it is fair to assume you are talking about me, among the few people. I must say I strive to present thing fairly, and most of my points are backed up by facts, or if it is an opinion I explain my reasoning. If you feel I am providing miss-information please be specific in refuting my points. If you just repeat what you just said instead of refuting my points, it appears you are not listening. This is a feeling I have gotten a lot when dealing with ICTA.
No, it doesn’t. The current law exempts dealers that do business at “occasional” coin shows, and it does not exclude out-of-state coin shows from the count. No one knows what “occasional” means, so no one knows whether they’re exempt. The Department of Commerce is left to decide what “occasional” means. Who wants that?
We pressed DOC to increase the number of shows allowed and to write that number into the law. HF 3309 raises the exemption to 12 shows a year and excludes out-of-state coin shows.
Ok, hear is another area that I keep explaining, but ICTA doesn't refute my specific points. Perhaps I am not being clear, so I will try again.
The way this exemption is worded, the occasional is modifying the word "trade show" this means that with the current wording, a dealer can go to any number of trade shows without having to register, just so long as the show are not setup continuously. My interpretation is consistent with other areas of Minnesota law. Specifically sales taxes are exempted at "occasional garage sales." Now a person can go to as many garage sales as they like as long as the garage sales are not setup continuously.
The Department of Commerce (DOC) tried to come after me on two different occasions (they both corresponded exactly with comments I made on this board critical of the law). Both times I refused to back down, and they relented. The last time they went as far as to issue me a subpoena asking me how many coin shows I did. When I asked them how many I could do they put in writing that they had no set limit, and they just decide on a case by case basis. Wow, they just admitted that they were violating my due process rights by arbitrarily enforcing the law. I took the 5th in answering there questions and they relented. It was a good thing they did to, because I had a lawyer a lined up and was ready to sue them for violating my rights.
The reason I stood up the DOC was 2 fold, I worked hard to get the exemption into the law when it was first passed, talking to some key legislators. The other reason is I knew what a devastating effect having any kind of a limit on coin shows would be to Minnesota shows. Let me explain this better because it is a side of the coin market most of the ICTA board members don't see (of course I do know of a board member that sets up at our local show, you know who you are
There are 3 monthly coin shows in the twin cities, there are also other shows throughout the state run by various coin clubs. You see a lot of the same dealers at all of these shows. I am going to guess that maybe half of them are registered, and most of those registered have a shop they run outside of the shows. Now if coin dealers had to cut back shows, to get under the limit, some of these shows would not be able to survive. If the shows started folding, then other dealers would not have enough shows to justify carrying an inventory that would be subject to market volatility. They would end up going out of business. As more dealers leave we get stuck in a negative feedback loop, and suddenly all coin shows would be in trouble. I just talked to the bourse chair of my club show, which is probably the biggest coin show in the state (MOON is close) we are very concerned about this. Our contract for the space needs to be renewed this summer, we are going to have some hard decisions to make if this law passes.
Now as Harry stated they have been working with DOC and DOC has insisted the coin show exemption limit be set to 12. I don't think it is far fetched to believe that DOC is insisting on this because they know they cannot regulate coin shows as the law is written. Now I am making an assumption here, but if I am wrong and the DOC is not asking for this change, that means that ICTA could pull this provision at any time and go on with the rest of the bill. Please Please Please do this! Then we can go on fighting together for things that without question will help the industry.
HF 3309 requires coin dealers to continue to register for two years after they stop being a coin dealer, and the bill is retroactive. If you reach the dollar threshold with your last year’s sales, you will have to register even if you make no sales after the law goes into effect.
HF3309 was like this when introduced but thanks to the A-1 amendment you had introduced it was removed from your bill. Thank you so much for doing this.
author's 1st)
HF 3309 is not retroactive, and it makes several improvements in current law:
The retroactive nature of the law, I feel was fixed with the a-1 amendment.
• HF 3309 raises the registration threshold from $5,000 to $25,000 (a major benefit to small dealers).
Not convinced this will affect to many dealers. But I agree it is a step in the right direction and a win for the good guys.
• It eliminates the requirement to keep a 12-month rolling total of your transactions and sets the period as July 1 through June 30 of each year (current law is a bookkeeping nightmare especially for smaller dealers).
This doesn't make that much of a difference, because once you hit the 25K threshold you be required to continue to register until you were no longer a dealer. (no more record keeping at that point) It would have been until 2 years after you stopped being a dealer, if it was not for the A-1 amendment.
No this is just not accurate. Current law would allow you to stop registering when you stop being a dealer. HF3309 as introduced would have changed that so you would have to continue to register for 2 years after you stopped being a dealer. The A-1 amendment went back to the original language in law. You can look on line for the wording of current law MN Statute 80G, HF3309, on-line. I don't think they have posted the A-1 amendment yet, but I have a hard copy of the A-1 amendment at the hearing on Tuesday.)
80G.02
Once a bullion coin dealer is required to register itself and its coin dealer representatives, the coin dealer must thereafter renew its registration and the registration of each of its coin dealer representatives in accordance with this chapter, regardless of the aggregate amount of transactions, unless the person ceases to be a bullion coin dealer.
HF3309
Strikes the word "unless" and replaces with "for two years after"
A-1 amendment
Page 3, line 18, reinstate ", unless" and delete "for two years after"
I have given you credit for going back to the original language on this one, but it is unfair for you to try and revise history and say your HF3309 did not originally contain this change, and saying that I was some how misleading people whey I said it did. I have a hard time understanding why you let this change get into your HF3309, but am glad you corrected your mistake when I pointed it out to your lobbyist.
• HF 3309 increases the time dealers have to file their registrations from 30 days to 45 days.
No, it doesn’t. The law already covers “other precious metals”, which includes palladium.
Ok so the current law covered "Gold, Silver, Platinum, and other precious metals" now you want to change that to be, "Gold, Silver, Platinum, Palladium, and other precious metals."
Why would you want to make this change??? It does not clear up much confusion in the law, since you still have that vague "other precious metals" clause. My bet is this was something the DOC wanted, because they knew they could not enforce "other precious metals" to mean Palladium. Don't you just hate it when the constitute keeps getting in the way? I am going to stand by my statement that the change expands the regulation to include Palladium because it will now allow the DOC to enforce that.
HF 3309 clarifies legislative intent to include these products.
(Ok this is going to be a fun one. I would encourage you to verify my response to the next questions. After you do I hope you realize that it would be better if we stopped this feud and worked together, I would be an asset to your efforts. The only thing I want is to mix the coin show limit, and that you just listen to me on some of the other issue even if we cannot get those changed. Now on to my response.)
You are just plain wrong on this one. The best way to determine legislative intent is to look at the hearings when the law was originally passed. The 80G coin bullion dealer law was originally passed through by the Attorney Generals office.
Government Operations Feb. 27, 2013 (you can find an mp3 of this in the MN legislative archives. I may also have a copy I can e-mail you if you PM me.) the time markings are where it occurs in the MP3 file.
2:30
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Kermit Fruechte I am an Assistant Attorney General at the Attorney General's office, and to answer your first question I don't believe this is ... this bill contains rule making in it. What the bill is designed to do is get at the problem of fraudulent and unscrupulous coin dealers.
2:46
Umm ... the office has repeatedly seen complains from companies both here and throughout the country that pray on ... umm ... consumers especially senior citizens. What I want to first address is what the bill doesn't do. It doesn't cover... it only covers gold coins[sic] ... it doesn't cover jewelery, it doesn't cover gold bars, it doesn't cover investments in silver and gold ..the actual ... umm ...the actual metals. It also exempts those who engage in less than 5 transaction a year or in more transactions than that where the aggregate value is $5,000. It doesn't cover wholesale transactions, so if you are a coin wholesaler selling to coin dealers you are not covered by this.
3:31
This bill deals with coin companies that are selling coins, investment coins, directly to consumers.
Here is the thing this change makes a real difference if you are a smaller dealer and are registered. The bill contains a sliding scale for the bonding, the higher your sales, the more it costs to comply with this law. If you add these products it will push some of these dealers into a higher tier. It also undoes some of the good you did with moving the threshold up to 25k.
No, it doesn’t. The provision of federal law cited to support this claim authorizes the Mint to establish its Authorized Purchaser network for distribution of American Eagles and other bullion (not numismatic) coins. It has nothing to do with the regulation of coin dealers, and it does not preempt states from regulating coin dealers.
oh boy, here we go again. I have been trying to explain this to ICTA for years, and they just don't listen to my point. It is OK if you disagree with me, but if you keep using an argument that I have countered, and don't even acknowledge my counter argument in your response, it just looks like you were not listening.
OK here we go... the argument again... The law I quoted was originally passed in 2005, as part of the presidential dollar coin law. If you read the whole law you will see that the main point of the law is to break down barriers, although that is mainly for the circulation of the dollar coin, this provision being in this law certainly fit with the overall feel of what that particular bill was trying to do. If you look at the legislative history it also supports my interpretation that this was trying to make sure there were a large number of dealers available to sell bullion coins.
Now you claim this provision was to establish the authorized Purchasers network. That can not possibly be true, because the authorized purchasers program was established long before this provision was put into law.
Harry Miller
Chairman Industry Consul for Tangible Assets
President Millers’ Mint Ltd
Here is what I would like you to get out of my response. I think that ICTA has done a lot of great things. However, I think you are making a mistake on HF3309. You are making the law worse, and you are putting Minnesota coin shows in grave danger. I think we both have the same objectives, and we both share a love for coins. I sincerely hope that you can understand where I am coming from, and we can work together on this. However, if you continue to push HF3309 with the coin show limit in it, I will do everything in my legal power to stop it. I am not doing this to be mean, I am doing this because the future of my business, and the future of coin shows in this state are at stake. I sent you a PM earlier today with my contact information. Please give me a call if you want to talk privately, or you want to work together.
Join the fight against Minnesota's unjust coin dealer tax law.