California proposed sales tax on ALL internet purchases!

[Mvgratz]

This just came to me curtiousy of ValeyVapor... Sounds like the person that sugguested this needs a good azz chewing.

A California State Assemblymember has suggested that California charge
everyone sales tax on internet purchases. I would encourage everyone
that buys anything online to raise some hell about this. Yes, if
passed....it would probably kill Valley Vapor, but I buy stuff online
too. Charles Calderon from Whittier is the guy to holler at. Here's a
link:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/05/internet-sales-tax-bill-advance
s-in-california-legislature.html

 

[mlinky]

They can't force California sales tax to be charged for shipments out of state. It violates the Commerce Clause.

 

[nerak]

Boy that would cost and arm and a leg! Of course I always report most of mine on my state return. I don't keep a running total during the year, but I do try to guess!

 

[Mvgratz]

They can't force California sales tax to be charged for shipments out of state. It violates the Commerce Clause.

That may very well be true. There is one vendor (I can't remember who it was) that charged me sales tax, and they were in Cali. I know that was BS too, but didn't really notice what had been done till I had commited to the purchase.

 

[mlinky]

That may very well be true. There is one vendor (I can't remember who it was) that charged me sales tax, and they were in Cali. I know that was BS too, but didn't really notice what had been done till I had commited to the purchase.

I can't access the link in the quote, but there have been US Supreme Court cases on the issue, last one in the '90's. The state that is benefitting from the tax cannot force an out-of-state retailer to collect taxes for it, and cannot charge sales tax to an out-of-state resident when the product is not being "sold" in the state. Now, if what they are doing is expanding the definition of what makes a business have an in-state presence sufficient to force them to collect taxes from their sales, it would still have to pass constitutional scrutiny.

 

[Mvgratz]

I can't access the link in the quote, but there have been US Supreme Court cases on the issue, last one in the '90's. The state that is benefitting from the tax cannot force an out-of-state retailer to collect taxes for it, and cannot charge sales tax to an out-of-state resident when the product is not being "sold" in the state. Now, if what they are doing is expanding the definition of what makes a business have an in-state presence sufficient to force them to collect taxes from their sales, it would still have to pass constitutional scrutiny.

Which is why I deliberatley do not buy from Florida vendors online. I pay enough sales tax on the crap I buy locally imo.

 

[Ruppy]

Heres the link that MV originally posted
Internet sales tax bill advances in California Legislature - latimes.com

The bill would reinterpret California law to consider the presence of related companies sufficient to require that sales taxes be collected. In Amazon's case, that presence would be established by counting an Amazon-affiliated company that manufactures Kindle e-book readers.

 

[Mvgratz]

Thank you Ruppy

 

[PattyR]

It's nice to have a lawyer in the REO family

I can't access the link in the quote, but there have been US Supreme Court cases on the issue, last one in the '90's. The state that is benefitting from the tax cannot force an out-of-state retailer to collect taxes for it, and cannot charge sales tax to an out-of-state resident when the product is not being "sold" in the state. Now, if what they are doing is expanding the definition of what makes a business have an in-state presence sufficient to force them to collect taxes from their sales, it would still have to pass constitutional scrutiny.

 

[mlinky]

Heres the link that MV originally posted
Internet sales tax bill advances in California Legislature - latimes.com

Bingo. First, it still has to pass constitutional scrutiny because the state is essentially saying that they have power over the company. Lot's of constitutional law on what is required to be considered a resident. Even if it can apply to a company, this particular legislation only affects California residents purchasing from such a company.

 

[Mvgratz]

California is "known" lately for not necessarily following federal law. Example Prop. 215...

 

[canoeist]

South Carolina just passed a bill giving Amazon a 4 year exemption on collecting tax on sales to SC if they built a distribution center here. The first time the legislature voted it down. Think about it, SC is not getting any tax now when residents purchase from Amazon and Amazon is investing upwards of 200 million dollars and close to 2,000 jobs in a state. I cannot believe these backasswards fools voted it down the first time.

I also think that within 5 years they will find a way to tax all online purchases, at least purchases from within the US. The lawmakers are too clever when it comes to finding a new way to collect some more money. They have economic blinders on and can only see one side of the budget equation. OK, I am done.