Internet sales tax? yea or nay?

[Skull Pilot]

This is the Sales tax filing I have to do every month

http://www.ct.gov/drs/lib/drs/forms/tscbus/os-114.pdf

You expect businesses to do a similar filing for all 50 states every month for free?

 

[WorldWatcher]

It already is the reality.

If I take a telephone order from a guy in another state my POS system assesses CT sales tax on taxable purchases. I tell him the price including tax and he gives me a credit card number. Then at the end of the month I have to print a report of all my sales (not just the taxable ones then that list is separated into taxable and non taxable sales from which the sales tax due is calculated. I then remit payment on the thirtieth of every month for the previous month sales taxes.

It's the same fucking thing as an internet order.

So don't tell me the system doesn't already exist.

I didn't say it couldn't be done based on the state of sale, I said that reality is that most state charge tax based on state of use.

Sales tax is not charged on the destination of a product it is charged where the product is sold. How many times have you been asked if the product you're buying is going to be used in the state in which you are buying it? If you say you're going to use the item in another state then do you get a pass on sales tax?

For B&M stores - never.

For online sales more and more every year. For the last view years online retailers have had to determine the destination to determine if they have to charge sales tax for in state residents.

But to anwser your question, the first time I was asked about location of use v. location of purchase was 1984.

I'm sorry to tell you something but I really don't care they way that CT does it. (But your description seems to imply that your are charging CT sales tax on all transactions, then separating out taxable and non-taxable, and remitting only the taxable sales. Does that mean you company just keeps the extra tax charged for the non-taxable sales?

No I charge CT sales tax on taxable transactions. My POS system is programmed with taxable and nontaxable items and services as are most every business's POS systems. The only tax I worry about is the CT sales tax. It matters not if the customer lives in CT, MA, RI, TX CA or East Ass Fuck I charge CT sales tax on taxable items and remit that tax to the state of CT.

Whew - glad to hear it.

The reality is that most states charge sales tax on out-of-state purchases and the system is moving to a POS collection method instead of the "honor" system where citizens are expected to just send a check to their State.

Technically it's called a use tax.

"Sales Tax" or "Use Tax" is irrelevant, it's a tax on a purchase.

The state of MA or any other state has no right to ask me to collect tax for them at my expense and I have no obligation to do so.

I agree, however the State of CT does have such a right and it's the State of CT that will be telling you that you have to process them so that the State of CT can in reciprocity receive the out-of-state sales tax due it from other states.

If CT chooses not to participate in the program, then the State of CT won't be telling you to collect other states sales tax.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is the Sales tax filing I have to do every month

http://www.ct.gov/drs/lib/drs/forms/tscbus/os-114.pdf

You expect businesses to do a similar filing for all 50 states every month for free?

Nope and that's not what the law will require. Prior to a state participating in the program they will have to simplify their submission process which most likely will be an online submission with data being transmitted electronically from the marketing/accounting/bookkeeping systems used by the online resellers.

Same with us in HR. In the old days people filled out paper applications, we put the proper deduction on their pay record and we sent the forms to the health insurance carrier and they hand typed it into their system. Now new hires select their enrollment and options on a simplified online form and we electronically transmit them to the health care provider. Much easier and much more efficient.

The new law requires simplification and standardization of the submission with will (most likely) be electronic, their software packages will do things automatically. It will probably take a year or two to work out the bugs, but after that it will be just as easy.



>>>>

 

[eflatminor]

State A is choosing to participate in the program or not. If State A chooses not to participate in having it's out of state sales tax collected by other states, then it doesn't have to collect the sales tax for them either.

If true, which is hard to believe that a state can choose to not participate in a federal law...but if true, then expect all internet companies to relocate to state A, thereby relieving their customers from having to pay a sales tax at the point of purchase. Your scheme to increase tax revenues for states will not work.

 

[JWBooth]

No
Nyet
Nada
Non
Nah
Nope
UhUh
Nem
Iie
Nein
Ochi
Nullus
Bu dui
Nae

 

[WorldWatcher]

State A is choosing to participate in the program or not. If State A chooses not to participate in having it's out of state sales tax collected by other states, then it doesn't have to collect the sales tax for them either.

If true, which is hard to believe that a state can choose to not participate in a federal law...but if true, then expect all internet companies to relocate to state A, thereby relieving their customers from having to pay a sales tax at the point of purchase. Your scheme to increase tax revenues for states will not work.

You first sentence indicates that your really haven't read the law.

It's not "my scheme", I'm simply discussing the law. I'm not even sure I like it because as a tax payer it will mean more money out of my pocket.

I'm just discussing the issue.

Technically a state can have no sales tax (such as Deleware) and still choose to participate in the program for collections. The two are not interdependent.



>>>>

 

[eflatminor]

State A is choosing to participate in the program or not. If State A chooses not to participate in having it's out of state sales tax collected by other states, then it doesn't have to collect the sales tax for them either.

If true, which is hard to believe that a state can choose to not participate in a federal law...but if true, then expect all internet companies to relocate to state A, thereby relieving their customers from having to pay a sales tax at the point of purchase. Your scheme to increase tax revenues for states will not work.

You first sentence indicates that your really haven't read the law.

It's not "my scheme", I'm simply discussing the law. I'm not even sure I like it because as a tax payer it will mean more money out of my pocket.

I'm just discussing the issue.

Technically a state can have no sales tax (such as Deleware) and still choose to participate in the program for collections. The two are not interdependent.

Didn't say they were interdependent. But you said the program was optional. If true, why would any internet-based business remain in a state that forced their customers to pay sales tax and forced the company to go through the hassle of doling out those taxes to the correct state/municipality?

They wouldn't!

They would simply move to the state that doesn't participate in the program, saving their customers money and saving the company the hassle of complying with the program. If that state happens also to have no sale tax (or low sales tax), all the better for the company and its customers.

Again, the plan will not work.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If true, which is hard to believe that a state can choose to not participate in a federal law...but if true, then expect all internet companies to relocate to state A, thereby relieving their customers from having to pay a sales tax at the point of purchase. Your scheme to increase tax revenues for states will not work.

You first sentence indicates that your really haven't read the law.

It's not "my scheme", I'm simply discussing the law. I'm not even sure I like it because as a tax payer it will mean more money out of my pocket.

I'm just discussing the issue.

Technically a state can have no sales tax (such as Deleware) and still choose to participate in the program for collections. The two are not interdependent.

Didn't say they were interdependent. But you said the program was optional. If true, why would any internet-based business remain in a state that forced their customers to pay sales tax and forced the company to go through the hassle of doling out those taxes to the correct state/municipality?

They wouldn't!

They would simply move to the state that doesn't participate in the program, saving their customers money and saving the company the hassle of complying with the program. If that state happens also to have no sale tax (or low sales tax), all the better for the company and its customers.

Again, the plan will not work.

:Shrug: - It don't claim to have all the answers, but then again I don't make absolute statements simply because of personal preference either.

A couple of items to consider:

1. A state that has sale tax who does not choose to participate in the program will simply be cutting their own nose off. So one would assume that any state that has a sales tax as a revenue stream will be opting into the program.

2. There are only 5 states that don't have a sales tax (Alaska, Montana, Delaware, Oregon, and New Hampshire. It cost money to run a state, that means those states have devised other revenue streams that the company might not like. For example, Alaska gets a lot of revenue from the Alaskan pipeline so while there is no income tax and they might not participate in the program - shipping costs would wipe out any savings. There there is Delaware, they don't have a Sales Tax, they have additional business taxes on gross receipts of a business. Those gross receipt taxes while applied to the business and not the sale, are still going to be paid by the consumer in higher unit prices. Then you have to look at cost of living which impacts salaries/wages paid for different geographical areas, weather (winters in the norther states and Montana can have a negative impact on distribution especially during the critical Christmas season), infrastructure (are there buildings currently available or will you have to build to suit which can take awhile). Etc.

4. There is a cost to distribution and overall costs in transportation and storage can be kept lower, while providing faster delivery times and better customer service. As you establish these "nexuses" in other locations, they you become liable for the sales tax in those locations irregardless of the Marketplace Fairness Act, so I can see only having 4 states with no sales tax not being that big of a deal.

3. So no, I don't claim to know absolutes as in "it will work" or "it won't work", I do have a high confidence level though that it will "work itself out" over the next couple of years.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I didn't say it couldn't be done based on the state of sale, I said that reality is that most state charge tax based on state of use.

Sales tax is not charged on the destination of a product it is charged where the product is sold. How many times have you been asked if the product you're buying is going to be used in the state in which you are buying it? If you say you're going to use the item in another state then do you get a pass on sales tax?

For B&M stores - never.

For online sales more and more every year. For the last view years online retailers have had to determine the destination to determine if they have to charge sales tax for in state residents.

But to anwser your question, the first time I was asked about location of use v. location of purchase was 1984.

There is absolutely no difference between a traditional retailer and an internet retailer.

None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

If an item is bought via the internet, over the telephone or in person the transaction is exactly the same. the sale originates in the same place the sales tax should be in accordance to whatever tax the state in which the transaction takes place. The trans action takes place at the POS of the retailer not in the home of the buyer.

Whew - glad to hear it.

Technically it's called a use tax.

"Sales Tax" or "Use Tax" is irrelevant, it's a tax on a purchase.

The state of MA or any other state has no right to ask me to collect tax for them at my expense and I have no obligation to do so.

I agree, however the State of CT does have such a right and it's the State of CT that will be telling you that you have to process them so that the State of CT can in reciprocity receive the out-of-state sales tax due it from other states.

If CT chooses not to participate in the program, then the State of CT won't be telling you to collect other states sales tax.



>>>>

The state of CT cannot force me to track sales of residents of all 50 states for free either.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is the Sales tax filing I have to do every month

http://www.ct.gov/drs/lib/drs/forms/tscbus/os-114.pdf

You expect businesses to do a similar filing for all 50 states every month for free?

Nope and that's not what the law will require. Prior to a state participating in the program they will have to simplify their submission process which most likely will be an online submission with data being transmitted electronically from the marketing/accounting/bookkeeping systems used by the online resellers.

Of course it will be required. I do all of my CT tax on line but the form is the same. And you can simplify and standardize the form all you want the fact is that each state has different tax rates and imposes those taxes on different things. Not only will a retailer have to know what products and services are taxable in their state but those same products might not be taxable in another state and conversely some products and sevices might be taxable in another state but are not taxable in the business's home state.

There is no simplifying that with a form or an on line filing. A separate filing must be done for each state unless you think that all states will suddenly adopt the exact same sales tax rates and laws.

Same with us in HR. In the old days people filled out paper applications, we put the proper deduction on their pay record and we sent the forms to the health insurance carrier and they hand typed it into their system. Now new hires select their enrollment and options on a simplified online form and we electronically transmit them to the health care provider. Much easier and much more efficient.

Not the same at all. You don't have to know every different tax law for all 50 states in order to take a job application on line.

The new law requires simplification and standardization of the submission with will (most likely) be electronic, their software packages will do things automatically. It will probably take a year or two to work out the bugs, but after that it will be just as easy.



>>>>

It will not work. filings will not be automatic as you believe. Someone will have to remit the money monthly either on line or by check. There are too many variables to keep track of.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sales tax is not charged on the destination of a product it is charged where the product is sold. How many times have you been asked if the product you're buying is going to be used in the state in which you are buying it? If you say you're going to use the item in another state then do you get a pass on sales tax?

For B&M stores - never.

For online sales more and more every year. For the last view years online retailers have had to determine the destination to determine if they have to charge sales tax for in state residents.

But to anwser your question, the first time I was asked about location of use v. location of purchase was 1984.

There is absolutely no difference between a traditional retailer and an internet retailer.

None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

If an item is bought via the internet, over the telephone or in person the transaction is exactly the same. the sale originates in the same place the sales tax should be in accordance to whatever tax the state in which the transaction takes place. The trans action takes place at the POS of the retailer not in the home of the buyer.

No they are not exactly the same. In one case the customer pays a sales tax, currently when that same customer purchases online they have a means of tax evasion to not pay the tax.

When I'm sitting at my computer in Virginia and order a DVD from Amazon out of Washington, I click "Submit" in Virginia - therefore from my perspective as the consumer the transaction took place in Virginia. Same as if I drive to North Carolina and buy gas, when I input my Debit Card into the pump the transaction is taking place where I paid for it.

Whew - glad to hear it.



"Sales Tax" or "Use Tax" is irrelevant, it's a tax on a purchase.

The state of MA or any other state has no right to ask me to collect tax for them at my expense and I have no obligation to do so.

I agree, however the State of CT does have such a right and it's the State of CT that will be telling you that you have to process them so that the State of CT can in reciprocity receive the out-of-state sales tax due it from other states.

If CT chooses not to participate in the program, then the State of CT won't be telling you to collect other states sales tax.



>>>>

The state of CT cannot force me to track sales of residents of all 50 states for free either.

Never said they could. The State of CT though can require you to track sales to residents in other states and to collect sales tax and provide remittance as a condition of doing business. If you choose not to, that's your choice, the State of CT though can then revoke your license to conduct business. You would still be free to relocate to another state that does not participate in the system (if it passes). Currently there are only 5 states that don't charge sales tax (Alaska, Montana, Oregon, Delaware, and New Hampshire) - they might be good candidates, but be careful there might be other factors that you don't like.

You wouldn't be doing it for free though, you would have costs and you would have to pass those costs to your customers. That's not doing it for free.



>>>>

 

[FireFly]

Thinking about this a little more.....I'm wondering what else they're tacking on to this Bill?
Call me skeptical

are you ready for the rain tax that is about to rear its ugly head?

They already imposed that shit in my city. I get billed for each of my properties based on the amount of rain water they figure ran off each property. These assholes expect us to believe the streams & rivers were not created by natural runoff before. They gained real-estate by putting storm drains in the streams & covering them over. Now they expect to bill us for the water that runs through them.

 

[eflatminor]

You first sentence indicates that your really haven't read the law.

It's not "my scheme", I'm simply discussing the law. I'm not even sure I like it because as a tax payer it will mean more money out of my pocket.

I'm just discussing the issue.

Technically a state can have no sales tax (such as Deleware) and still choose to participate in the program for collections. The two are not interdependent.

Didn't say they were interdependent. But you said the program was optional. If true, why would any internet-based business remain in a state that forced their customers to pay sales tax and forced the company to go through the hassle of doling out those taxes to the correct state/municipality?

They wouldn't!

They would simply move to the state that doesn't participate in the program, saving their customers money and saving the company the hassle of complying with the program. If that state happens also to have no sale tax (or low sales tax), all the better for the company and its customers.

Again, the plan will not work.

:Shrug: - It don't claim to have all the answers, but then again I don't make absolute statements simply because of personal preference either.

Actually, you did.

1. A state that has sale tax who does not choose to participate in the program will simply be cutting their own nose off. So one would assume that any state that has a sales tax as a revenue stream will be opting into the program.

From your big government point of view, perhaps. But to 'assume' you speak for all states is well, making an 'absolute statement simply because of your personal preference'...again.

Some states with a pro business attitude might see the increase number of employers that would come into their state by not participating in this scheme as a good thing. It's the same reason some states have no corporate income tax, to attract business and jobs.

Assume all you like, you're wrong.

2. There are only 5 states that don't have a sales tax (Alaska, Montana, Delaware, Oregon, and New Hampshire. It cost money to run a state, that means those states have devised other revenue streams that the company might not like. For example, Alaska gets a lot of revenue from the Alaskan pipeline so while there is no income tax and they might not participate in the program - shipping costs would wipe out any savings. There there is Delaware, they don't have a Sales Tax, they have additional business taxes on gross receipts of a business. Those gross receipt taxes while applied to the business and not the sale, are still going to be paid by the consumer in higher unit prices. Then you have to look at cost of living which impacts salaries/wages paid for different geographical areas, weather (winters in the norther states and Montana can have a negative impact on distribution especially during the critical Christmas season), infrastructure (are there buildings currently available or will you have to build to suit which can take awhile). Etc.

Which has nothing to do with the point at hand. Wasn't it you that tried to criticize me for suggesting this program and sales tax were 'interdependent'? Why, yes it was!

4. There is a cost to distribution and overall costs in transportation and storage can be kept lower, while providing faster delivery times and better customer service. As you establish these "nexuses" in other locations, they you become liable for the sales tax in those locations irregardless of the Marketplace Fairness Act, so I can see only having 4 states with no sales tax not being that big of a deal.

You're overlooking any state that chooses not to participate in the scheme, regardless of their sales tax. Those states will continue to collect taxes from in-state customers, just as they do today, but will maintain a HUGE advantage by not burdening their internet based businesses with the hassle of collecting/distributing the tax...not to mention their customers that will not have to pay the tax. Internet businesses would flock to those states, thereby eliminating gains in state tax coffers.

And if one of those 4 states with no sales tax takes that stance, the other 46 are out of luck entirely. Every internet business would relocate there, meaning, once again, your plan will not work.

3. So no, I don't claim to know absolutes as in "it will work" or "it won't work", I do have a high confidence level though that it will "work itself out" over the next couple of years.

Sounds like the plan for Obamacare. We don't know crap about this, but we hope it will work. Pass.

 

[Skull Pilot]

For B&M stores - never.

For online sales more and more every year. For the last view years online retailers have had to determine the destination to determine if they have to charge sales tax for in state residents.

But to anwser your question, the first time I was asked about location of use v. location of purchase was 1984.

There is absolutely no difference between a traditional retailer and an internet retailer.

None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

If an item is bought via the internet, over the telephone or in person the transaction is exactly the same. the sale originates in the same place the sales tax should be in accordance to whatever tax the state in which the transaction takes place. The trans action takes place at the POS of the retailer not in the home of the buyer.

No they are not exactly the same. In one case the customer pays a sales tax, currently when that same customer purchases online they have a means of tax evasion to not pay the tax.

When I'm sitting at my computer in Virginia and order a DVD from Amazon out of Washington, I click "Submit" in Virginia - therefore from my perspective as the consumer the transaction took place in Virginia. Same as if I drive to North Carolina and buy gas, when I input my Debit Card into the pump the transaction is taking place where I paid for it.

A transaction subject to sales tax takes place at the entity that holds the state sales tax number and permit. You do not hold that permit. The money lands in the till of the store from which you bought the product therefore that is the point of sale.

You credit card number is being processed not in your home but at the store from which you are purchasing the product. it is no different than you mailing a check to that same store.

Your gas purchase is no different.

The idea of making a simple retail sale more complex so as to squeeze every last tax dollar out of the consumer and to hamstring businesses with more ridiculous time wasting paperwork is ludicrous.

Whew - glad to hear it.



"Sales Tax" or "Use Tax" is irrelevant, it's a tax on a purchase.



I agree, however the State of CT does have such a right and it's the State of CT that will be telling you that you have to process them so that the State of CT can in reciprocity receive the out-of-state sales tax due it from other states.

If CT chooses not to participate in the program, then the State of CT won't be telling you to collect other states sales tax.



>>>>

The state of CT cannot force me to track sales of residents of all 50 states for free either.

Never said they could. The State of CT though can require you to track sales to residents in other states and to collect sales tax and provide remittance as a condition of doing business. If you choose not to, that's your choice, the State of CT though can then revoke your license to conduct business.

You wouldn't be doing it for free though, you would have costs and you would have to pass those costs to your customers. That's not doing it for free.



>>>>

Yeah we'll all just jack up our prices to comply with more government control then people like you will say we're raping the consumer.

The simple solution is for each state to collect sale taxes on all transactions subject to tax in their state.

treat a retail store, an on line store, a mail order catalog etc exactly the same within the borders of each state.

But that makes sense and doesn't require ridiculous pie in the sky computer integration and massive government expense so it will be dismissed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is the Sales tax filing I have to do every month

http://www.ct.gov/drs/lib/drs/forms/tscbus/os-114.pdf

You expect businesses to do a similar filing for all 50 states every month for free?

Nope and that's not what the law will require. Prior to a state participating in the program they will have to simplify their submission process which most likely will be an online submission with data being transmitted electronically from the marketing/accounting/bookkeeping systems used by the online resellers.

Of course it will be required. I do all of my CT tax on line but the form is the same. And you can simplify and standardize the form all you want the fact is that each state has different tax rates and imposes those taxes on different things. Not only will a retailer have to know what products and services are taxable in their state but those same products might not be taxable in another state and conversely some products and sevices might be taxable in another state but are not taxable in the business's home state.

There is no simplifying that with a form or an on line filing. A separate filing must be done for each state unless you think that all states will suddenly adopt the exact same sales tax rates and laws.

Of course each state will receive it's own filing. Not what I said.

Online services are already available that manage tax collections based on the tax rules, they already exists because online retailers already have to manage those items because they are are required to charge sales tax when the destination is in a state where the seller has a "nexus".

Same with us in HR. In the old days people filled out paper applications, we put the proper deduction on their pay record and we sent the forms to the health insurance carrier and they hand typed it into their system. Now new hires select their enrollment and options on a simplified online form and we electronically transmit them to the health care provider. Much easier and much more efficient.

Not the same at all. You don't have to know every different tax law for all 50 states in order to take a job application on line.

Seems like you missed the point, the point was a previously complex form was simplified, the data captured once manually, and then electronically tracked and transferred.

The new law requires simplification and standardization of the submission with will (most likely) be electronic, their software packages will do things automatically. It will probably take a year or two to work out the bugs, but after that it will be just as easy.



>>>>

It will not work. filings will not be automatic as you believe. Someone will have to remit the money monthly either on line or by check. There are too many variables to keep track of.

I know, there are so many variables to keep track of that I doubt Amazon will ever be able to create a Tax Collection Service and offer it, there are so many variables and so many different people they'll never have the ability to create a national distribution system.


............. Oh wait, they've done both those things.



>>>>

 

[hortysir]

No opinion either way, really.

Just a couple questions.
Does the tax rate belong to the seller's area or the buyer's?

Then there's S&H.
If S&H is free, then yes to the tax.
If not, the S&H should be enough to cover the tax rate

Typically the Sales Tax will be charged based on the deliver address (i.e. buyers area).

S&H and tax are two different things. S&H covers the cost of moving the item from the seller to the buyer, it has nothing to do with the Sales Tax owed.

But OK, I guess if it could work. The seller has their price for the item and a markup representing a small profit. Now the reseller can either (a) keep the price low and charge for shipping, or (b) raise the price and then offer "free" shipping. Bad thing is that if the items priced is raise for the "Free" shipping, then the item costs more meaning more in sales tax.



>>>>

Sales tax is imposed at the point of sale not the destination of a product.

"Residents of FL and CA please include Sales Tax"

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nope and that's not what the law will require. Prior to a state participating in the program they will have to simplify their submission process which most likely will be an online submission with data being transmitted electronically from the marketing/accounting/bookkeeping systems used by the online resellers.

Of course it will be required. I do all of my CT tax on line but the form is the same. And you can simplify and standardize the form all you want the fact is that each state has different tax rates and imposes those taxes on different things. Not only will a retailer have to know what products and services are taxable in their state but those same products might not be taxable in another state and conversely some products and sevices might be taxable in another state but are not taxable in the business's home state.

There is no simplifying that with a form or an on line filing. A separate filing must be done for each state unless you think that all states will suddenly adopt the exact same sales tax rates and laws.

Of course each state will receive it's own filing. Not what I said.

Online services are already available that manage tax collections based on the tax rules, they already exists because online retailers already have to manage those items because they are are required to charge sales tax when the destination is in a state where the seller has a "nexus".




Seems like you missed the point, the point was a previously complex form was simplified, the data captured once manually, and then electronically tracked and transferred.

The new law requires simplification and standardization of the submission with will (most likely) be electronic, their software packages will do things automatically. It will probably take a year or two to work out the bugs, but after that it will be just as easy.



>>>>

It will not work. filings will not be automatic as you believe. Someone will have to remit the money monthly either on line or by check. There are too many variables to keep track of.

I know, there are so many variables to keep track of that I doubt Amazon will ever be able to create a Tax Collection Service and offer it, there are so many variables and so many different people they'll never have the ability to create a national distribution system.


............. Oh wait, they've done both those things.



>>>>

The amazon web retailers so called tax collection service is intrastate not interstate. Just like sales taxes are intrastate not interstate.

Only one variable, the single state sales tax where the web retailer resides is used.

Add to that tracking individual purchases by state and then integrating all the tax laws of all 50 states not to mention local sales taxes into the mix and you have a system that will hobble business.

As I said there is a simple way to solve the problem but you are hell bent on red tape bureaucracy, complexity and high costs.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Typically the Sales Tax will be charged based on the deliver address (i.e. buyers area).

S&H and tax are two different things. S&H covers the cost of moving the item from the seller to the buyer, it has nothing to do with the Sales Tax owed.

But OK, I guess if it could work. The seller has their price for the item and a markup representing a small profit. Now the reseller can either (a) keep the price low and charge for shipping, or (b) raise the price and then offer "free" shipping. Bad thing is that if the items priced is raise for the "Free" shipping, then the item costs more meaning more in sales tax.



>>>>

Sales tax is imposed at the point of sale not the destination of a product.

"Residents of FL and CA please include Sales Tax"

Is the business selling them the products based in FL and CA? The answer is probably yes.

 

[realinvestment]

We are a midmarket manufacturer that occasionally sells parts to customers when they can't find local supply.

While I don't mind collecting sales tax, I do not want the burden of filing tax reports to 50 different states. It would be unmanageable.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Of course it will be required. I do all of my CT tax on line but the form is the same. And you can simplify and standardize the form all you want the fact is that each state has different tax rates and imposes those taxes on different things. Not only will a retailer have to know what products and services are taxable in their state but those same products might not be taxable in another state and conversely some products and sevices might be taxable in another state but are not taxable in the business's home state.

There is no simplifying that with a form or an on line filing. A separate filing must be done for each state unless you think that all states will suddenly adopt the exact same sales tax rates and laws.

Of course each state will receive it's own filing. Not what I said.

Online services are already available that manage tax collections based on the tax rules, they already exists because online retailers already have to manage those items because they are are required to charge sales tax when the destination is in a state where the seller has a "nexus".




Seems like you missed the point, the point was a previously complex form was simplified, the data captured once manually, and then electronically tracked and transferred.

It will not work. filings will not be automatic as you believe. Someone will have to remit the money monthly either on line or by check. There are too many variables to keep track of.

I know, there are so many variables to keep track of that I doubt Amazon will ever be able to create a Tax Collection Service and offer it, there are so many variables and so many different people they'll never have the ability to create a national distribution system.


............. Oh wait, they've done both those things.



>>>>

The amazon web retailers so called tax collection service is intrastate not interstate. Just like sales taxes are intrastate not interstate.

From their website: "Registration. If you are a Marketplace Professional seller or Webstore seller, you may register for tax collection services by providing to Amazon, in the format and manner we require, collection settings for the jurisdictions for which you wish to collect taxes or other transaction-based charges that we support for your Marketplace Professional or Webstore transactions, and any related information we request"

Their service covers multiple jurisdictions, note the plural.

Then of course if Amazon Tax Collection Services provides collections individually for NY, MA, CT, VA, GA, NC, SC, AL, FL, MS, LA, TX, CA, OR, AL, AK, MN, MT, MO, IW, IA, OH, etc, etc. what would prevent them from applying the same rules they are already using to transactions based on States to which they are already supplying services?

Only one variable, the single state sales tax where the web retailer resides is used.

They already supply services across multiple jurisdictions and in multiple states. Eventually it wouldn't matter what state the seller is in, it will matter what state the delivery is.

Add to that tracking individual purchases by state and then integrating all the tax laws of all 50 states not to mention local sales taxes into the mix and you have a system that will hobble business.

They already do it.

As I said there is a simple way to solve the problem but you are hell bent on red tape bureaucracy, complexity and high costs.

I don't necessarily disagree that it wouldn't be a simpler solution (understanding that just because something is complex doesn't mean it can't be done), however the States aren't going to buy into it. The reason? The states who are the consumers of the purchase will not get the revenue stream form the sale/use taxes for sales in their state. And yes you can piss and moan that the sale is in the state where the seller is, but that is not the construction of the law. The sale is in the state of the purchaser.


*******************************

BTW - The last I head while driving, there was some amendment issues and so the Senate vote has been delayed. Possibly later tonight.


>>>>