Petition against new Supreme Court Internet Sales Tax decision that will affect ALL products.

[ScottP]

The Supreme Court has over turned the "physical presence" standard of previous rulings that a business must have a physical presence in a State in order for the State to levy taxes for that businesses' sales. This means ALL internet transactions can now potentially be taxed by the States.
Supreme Court abandons physical presence standard in Wayfair

eBay has started a petition to ask Congress to stop this.
Support Fair Tax Policy For US Sellers & Buyers

I don't know if it will do any good, but unless you want to pay sales tax on all internet purchases, you should sign this petition.

 

[Myk]

Congress has been trying to pass internet tax so I doubt if they go along with fighting it. But as with the FDA I'm getting used to just harassing them to let them know we're getting ...... off.

 

[Rossum]

Congress has been trying to pass internet tax so I doubt if they go along with fighting it.

Congress has consistently failed to pass legislation allowing this kind of taxation. So now we have the SCOTUS legislating from the bench. Congress might indeed be less than pleased about that.

 

[Myk]

Congress has consistently failed to pass legislation allowing this kind of taxation. So now we have the SCOTUS legislating from the bench. Congress might indeed be less than pleased about that.

I'm less optimistic. Whoever has been paying off congress has succeeded in paying off SCOTUS.

 

[stols001]

This means ALL internet transactions can now potentially be taxed by the States.

Oh God of course they are. Now we can ALL reside in California. Jeez, thanks Supreme court, thank you SO Much for bumping that UP to the tippy top of your list of issues to address. I mean, no human rights or other issues all that important anymore right? Just taxation, that's all that matters.

Jeez we aren't EVEN to the FDA ruling and I'm glad I did some stocking up.

I'll sign. IDK that it will matter, but sure, I'll sign that sucker.

Anna

 

[Opinionated]

Congress has consistently failed to pass legislation allowing this kind of taxation. So now we have the SCOTUS legislating from the bench. Congress might indeed be less than pleased about that.

That's not new..

 

[Opinionated]

Taxation without representation is what started the revolutionary war..

 

[Rossum]

In principle, the buyer is who owes a Sales & Use tax. I understand that a state can make a business that has a nexus within their jurisdiction collect such taxes on their behalf, but I'll be damned if I can understand the rationale behind forcing a business located in, say Delaware (which has no such tax!) to collect taxes on behalf of 45 other states.

What's next? Are businesses in the US going to be required to to collect VAT taxes on behalf of countries that have such taxes if they export something to such a country?

How about all the Asian vendors? Good luck getting them to collect sales tax on behalf of the 45 states that have them. About the only way that's going to happen is if the US Customs service collects 'em on the way in. Wait, maybe I shouldn't give these clowns any ideas...

 

[Opinionated]

In principle, the buyer is who owes a Sales & Use tax. I understand that a state can make a business that has a nexus within their jurisdiction collect such taxes on their behalf, but I'll be damned if I can understand the rationale behind forcing a business located in, say Delaware (which has no such tax!) to collect taxes on behalf of 45 other states.

What's next? Are businesses in the US going to be required to to collect VAT taxes on behalf of countries that have such taxes if they export something to such a country?

How about all the Asian vendors? Good luck getting them to collect sales tax on behalf of the 45 states that have them. About the only way that's going to happen is if the US Customs service collects 'em on the way in. Wait, maybe I shouldn't give these clowns any ideas...

However, with the internet I can potentially be subject to not only sales tax in my state, but sales tax in the sellers state..

Meaning, if the seller is located in, say, California, then they can levy taxes on the sale plus my state can levy taxes on the sale..

 

[untar]

About the only way that's going to happen is if the US Customs service collects 'em on the way in. Wait, maybe I shouldn't give these clowns any ideas...

They just have to glance across the Atlantic for such great ideas

 

[Myk]

In IL it's colloquially called "sales tax". It is actually Retailer's Occupation Tax. You are NOT required to charge the customer sales tax. You are required to pay it on sales.
It is sort of a scam that it is not included in the price tag and then added at the register.

When our state supreme court said the "Use Tax" was legal they were equally paid off. If you buy in state you are not required to pay sales tax, the retailer is required to pay it. But if you buy out of state you are required to pay a use tax if you did not pay one to the state you bought in, or if you paid less tax to that state you're supposed to make up the difference to IL.

I agree, how is it that a state can force someone in another state to follow their laws? I will not be collecting sales tax for any other states. I'm not set up for that even on the very rare times it happens. I just won't sell to anyone in another state. I make less, the govt gets less.

 

[CMD-Ky]

Kentucky has had a provision that required all tax slaves to declare their internet purchases on the state income tax form and the 6% sales tax would be added to your tax bill. Every April 14 I dutifully, faithfully and meticulously complied with this provision.

 

[Opinionated]

In IL it's colloquially called "sales tax". It is actually Retailer's Occupation Tax. You are NOT required to charge the customer sales tax. You are required to pay it on sales.
It is sort of a scam that it is not included in the price tag and then added at the register.

When our state supreme court said the "Use Tax" was legal they were equally paid off. If you buy in state you are not required to pay sales tax, the retailer is required to pay it. But if you buy out of state you are required to pay a use tax if you did not pay one to the state you bought in, or if you paid less tax to that state you're supposed to make up the difference to IL.

I agree, how is it that a state can force someone in another state to follow their laws? I will not be collecting sales tax for any other states. I'm not set up for that even on the very rare times it happens. I just won't sell to anyone in another state. I make less, the govt gets less.

This will potentially have an impact on people who live rurally..

We live very rural. The stores we can shop at for women's clothing here are four. Cato, Peebles, Walmart or tractor supply. Which you might say those are fine choices, but I don't think so therefore I buy most of my clothing online.. I also buy most gifts online, I buy most of every thing online, even some speciality food items..

I prefer living here in the middle of nowhere, but I like the convenience and choice of big city shopping, which I've gotten terribly used to using the internet to get..

They start taxing me to death and that option might just go out the window....they put too much on businesses and that option might just go out the window.

 

[CMD-Ky]

...

I make less, the govt gets less.

The geniuses in state capitols, Washington, District of Corruption and academia have never understood that taxation is not a static concept, it modifies behavior. If you tax it, you get less of it.

 

[VHRB2014]

The Supreme's have become nothing but a disgusting body politic used and abused by partisans on both sides as the general public flips flops between self destruction and self control every cycle.

We have lazy ambivalent people to thank for this. A people who refuse to take full responsibility for their own destiny are destined to be ruled by an out of touch ruling class.

 

[CMD-Ky]

delete

 

[zoiDman]

Congress has consistently failed to pass legislation allowing this kind of taxation. So now we have the SCOTUS legislating from the bench. Congress might indeed be less than pleased about that.

Whereas I Don't Agree with how the SCOTUS ruled in this case, and I felt that a "Physical Presence" was an Reasonable Standard as to determine Taxable/Non-Taxable status, is this really a good example of Legislating from the Bench?

 

[Rossum]

Whereas I Don't Agree with how the SCOTUS ruled in this case, and I felt that a "Physical Presence" was an Reasonable Standard as to determine Taxable/Non-Taxable status, is this really a good example of Legislating from the Bench?

Right, physical presence was a very straightforward standard. I own a (not vape related) business that sells rather specialized stuff to customers all over the country (and in fact all over the world -- a bit over 50% of my sales are outside the US). Up until this abominable decision, I had it pretty easy: If my customer was in PA, I collected 6%. If he wasn't, I didn't.

Now I'm gonna have to start generating reports to see whether my sales to South Dakota (and the 20 or so other states that have already passed "Economic nexus" laws in anticipation of this) meet the requirements of each those laws...

 

[CMD-Ky]

Can't like this post, this can do nothing but increase your cost of doing business. I can't imagine what it will take to comply with this foolishness. Another example of how those who have never done much of anything productive telling those who do produce something of value how it should all be done. A law degree and a Harvard education do not guarantee wisdom. Judges aren't made in heaven but in smokey back room like every other sleazy politician.

PS: I was surprised at the split.

Right, physical presence was a very straightforward standard. I own a (not vape related) business that sells rather specialized stuff to customers all over the country (and in fact all over the world -- a bit over 50% of my sales are outside the US). Up until this abominable decision, I had it pretty easy: If my customer was in PA, I collected 6%. If he wasn't, I didn't.

Now I'm gonna have to start generating reports to see whether my sales to South Dakota (and the 20 or so other states that have already passed "Economic nexus" laws in anticipation of this) meet the requirements of each those laws...

 

[Myk]

Right, physical presence was a very straightforward standard. I own a (not vape related) business that sells rather specialized stuff to customers all over the country (and in fact all over the world -- a bit over 50% of my sales are outside the US). Up until this abominable decision, I had it pretty easy: If my customer was in PA, I collected 6%. If he wasn't, I didn't.

Now I'm gonna have to start generating reports to see whether my sales to South Dakota (and the 20 or so other states that have already passed "Economic nexus" laws in anticipation of this) meet the requirements of each those laws...

Can't like this post, this can do nothing but increase your cost of doing business. I can't imagine what it will take to comply with this foolishness.

Exactly. It simply wouldn't be worth it for me to take the time to even look into the laws of each state when it comes up every few years so I can send a state $10-$20.

And that's small scale.
The accounting requirements for someone like Amazon would be insane.

The way it was states had to try to get a business like Amazon to have a physical presence in their state by being a more business friendly state. The bad states don't like the idea of having to compete.