Thanks for that. Would all of the same rules apply here though, as this isn't a "sales tax"?
California Prop 56 - Hidden Vape Tax
- Thread starter Haktuspit
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I honestly don't know. With some of the stuff that states are coming up with to meet budget shortfalls, a lot of what's being passed just doesn't pass the smell test. One only needs to look at the idiocy in Arkansas and Indiana.
What's not at all clear in that summary is whether the bullet-points are tied together with an "or" or an "and". I'm going to assume it's an "and", because the last two items alone are not sufficient to meet the standard set in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota.
I'm fairly certain it's an "or" between 1 and 2, and there is an "and" between 2 and 3. This would be specifically for companies that do not meet the standard set in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota.
Hmm... my legalese is off. Does amazon pay click referrals? or am I misunderstanding the first part?
If a person posts a referral link in a state, that can be counted as a point of presence by the tax offices, even if there's no physical brick and mortar store/warehouse.
And... from the "More Good News" file, I just received an e-Mail from someone regarding the New 2017 - 18 Tax Rates on Tobacco Products in CA.
"...
The fiscal year 2017-18 Tobacco Products Tax Rate is based on the wholesale premium brand cigarette price as of March 1, 2017, as published by the Tobacco Merchants Association, and will be set at 65.08%. This rate is significantly higher than the fiscal year 2016-17 rate of 27.30% due to the passage of Proposition 56, The California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016.
..."
https://www.boe.ca.gov/meetings/pdf/2017/042517_P3_1_Tobacco_Tax_Rate.pdf
https://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/l502.pdf
"...
The fiscal year 2017-18 Tobacco Products Tax Rate is based on the wholesale premium brand cigarette price as of March 1, 2017, as published by the Tobacco Merchants Association, and will be set at 65.08%. This rate is significantly higher than the fiscal year 2016-17 rate of 27.30% due to the passage of Proposition 56, The California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016.
..."
https://www.boe.ca.gov/meetings/pdf/2017/042517_P3_1_Tobacco_Tax_Rate.pdf
https://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/l502.pdf
I'm pretty naive on how these things work. If things change for the better on the federal level ( FDA Cole-Bishop ), how much does it then change what happens on a state level?
Congratulations, California! You've surpassed PA's 40% record for state-wide vape tax!
Woo-Hoo! We're Number One!
No, that will just mean that the states actually have something to tax.
If the Deeming is implemented as currently written, vapor taxes pretty much become irrelevant in another year or two.
Have you guys seen this in action? None of my local shops seem to have raised their prices, at least the last time I was in them, a month or so ago...I'm sure I would have noticed if juice prices had gone up that much. I bought a new mod from a shop on my last visit and they matched the online price, but if I read it right, this tax is on ejuice only...I buy most of my juice online, have shops raised their prices by 35-40%? (65% of wholesale *should* be around 35% of retail, the way I figure it, maybe less because the margins are really huge on ejuice.)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked