Quote:
Originally Posted by JayB
I dont really know what you are saying here. Its always up to the vendor to collect sales tax. How would a state be able to charge you for something they did not even know you bought.
|
The Constitution and the Supreme Court say otherwise. They require something to give the state jurisdiction over the company who otherwise has no presence in the state. If I am California, what jurisdiction does NY State law have over me? California currently asks on the state form for you to voluntarily report said owed taxes. It really is not Amazon's problem that people do not report the taxes they owe. Amazon is not subject to California's jurisdiction and thus cannot be ordered by the state to do anything.
Quote:
|
This is not a new tax this is just getting people to pay what they would already pay if they bought in a local store. This would level the playing field for local business. I see many things online being sold for the same price locally but throw in sales tax and people will bypass their local retailers to save a few bucks online.
|
And it is up to the state to collect the tax from the citizens who owe it. They have jurisdiction over local businesses to require them to collect it from the customer, they do not have any such legal jurisdiction to demand others collect it that have no presence in the state.
California is now saying "if a web publisher in the state is lawfully allowed to place ads for your company on their web properties, then that means Amazon is legally present in the state and can be required to collect taxes as if they were resident."
That's simply not true under the constitution's commerce class, and well established Supreme Court precedent.
A Russian court can order me to do anything they want, but I have no legal obligation to comply, because they have no nexus of jurisdiction over me, regardless of how reasonable or fair you might think the demand to be. Same applies here.
I understand some say it isn't fair or what not. Fine, that's a valid view, but it doesn't change the law. The law is clear, and established. The only way that can be changed is by the US Congress. They have tried many times in the last 20 years to do that, and have failed every single time. The public screams and does not want it.
You say it is up to the voters, the voters speak through their elected Congress.
They do not want cross state sales tax collections.
So don't support passage of knowingly unconstitutional laws that only HURT legitimate California businesses, and achieve no collection of taxes.
Instead if you think you are right, convince the rest of your fellow voters of that fact.
Some reading on the subject:
The Quill case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_C...._North_Dakota
An article that mentions that such a rule would require vendors to comply with over 6,277 separate sales tax jurisdictions and 4,452 separate use tax jurisdictions.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/963.html
What he doesn't mention, is that what exactly is taxable also varies greatly by jurisdiction. In many states, for example, a digital only good, such as an ebook or mp3 download, is never taxable. In others, they are. In some states no food items are taxable, in other states some "snack" type foods are, and then further the definition of what qualifies as a "snack" food varies. Is it really fair to ask a company that has no presence in a state and offers such a huge variety of products, to know and comply with literally thousands of variations of sales tax amounts and definitions of taxable and non-taxable goods?
Instead of passing interstate tax collection laws, Congress keeps sending the message to states to keep their hands off any "e-taxes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act
First passed in 1998 and extended three times, most recently until 2014. While it does not exempt sales taxes, it also failed to include any provision to legally collect them.
There is a movement to make this act permanent, supported by many in Congress.