View Single Post
Old 04-08-2012, 02:41 AM   #64
Kumabjorn
Basculocolpic
Kumabjorn ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kumabjorn ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kumabjorn ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kumabjorn ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kumabjorn ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kumabjorn ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kumabjorn ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kumabjorn ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kumabjorn ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kumabjorn ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Kumabjorn ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Kumabjorn's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,356
Karma: 20181319
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Device: Kindle 3 WiFi, Kindle 4SO, Kindle for Android, Sony PRS-350 and PRS-T1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck View Post
One of the issues going around is "what counts as a physical presence in the state?"

Amazon has warehouses & employees in several states where they don't currently pay sales taxes. I can understand a legal argument that, regardless of where corporate headquarters is, if the order is filled & shipped from within the state, that counts as a sale within the state and therefor is due sales tax.
Fogrive an ignoramus. Just so I can follow this line of thought (not living in a federation makes it confusing). Let us assume that Rhode Island has a 5% sales tax. Let us further assume that Coca-Cola has no presence in RI. Every coke sold in RI comes either from Connecticut or Massachusets (distributors, bottling plants etc). Yet every retailer charges the RI consumer 5% on every Coke sold. Does that mean they can pocket those 5% for themselves? RI can't claim it since Coca-Cola has no presence in the state?
I realize this is an extreme example, and there might be several practical obstacles, but as a principle is this line of thought correct?
Kumabjorn is offline   Reply With Quote