Article

2011-06-30 -Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

Amazon ends deal with 25,000 California websites

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2011-06-30 10:10|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

...

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) is a Supreme Court ruling concerning use tax. Quill Corporation is an office supply retailer. Quill had no physical presence in North Dakota (neither a sales force, nor a retail outlet), however it did have a licensed computer software program that some of its North Dakota customers used to check Quill's current inventories and place orders directly. North Dakota attempted to impose a use tax on Quill, which was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-06-30 10:47|| 2011-06-30 10:47|| Front Page Top

#2 It isn't ended - yet. The letter sez it takes effect if and when the law takes effect, and that any monies owed up until that point will be paid.

Posted by Pappy 2011-06-30 11:19|| 2011-06-30 11:19|| Front Page Top

#3 Ah, liberals. "Tax and Tax more!" just doesn't work. Congratulations on adding more people to welfare and not collecting a single time for this tax.

Fucking morons.

Posted by DarthVader 2011-06-30 11:21|| 2011-06-30 11:21|| Front Page Top

#4 Or a dime, either!

Sorry, Darth!

Posted by Bobby 2011-06-30 11:45|| 2011-06-30 11:45|| Front Page Top

#5 Dimes, yes!

Wasting time for lost dimes!

Posted by DarthVader 2011-06-30 11:47|| 2011-06-30 11:47|| Front Page Top

#6 North Dakota attempted to impose a use tax on Quill, which was struck down by the Supreme Court. The USSC did not strike down 'use taxes.' In the cited case, it struck down an attempt by ND to force Quill to pay ND directly for Quill's sales to ND residents. Sales & use taxes are STILL LEGAL. States have a perfect right to collect them - or not. States have to collect those taxes at the point of sale if within the state or from the purchasers.
Too much anti-tax Kool Aid on the table here.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-06-30 12:37|| 2011-06-30 12:37|| Front Page Top

#7 AH, that's similar to MA trying to collect sales tax from MA residents on purchases made in tax free NH. That didn't go over real well and almost started a war when MA staties went to NH state liquor stores to spy on who was buying. NH staties resented that and arrested some.

Posted by AlanC 2011-06-30 12:44|| 2011-06-30 12:44|| Front Page Top

#8 Not to hard to imagine who would win a war between NH and MA: one side has guns, the other side has giant puppets and Obama 08 bumper stickers.

Posted by Secret Master 2011-06-30 14:08|| 2011-06-30 14:08|| Front Page Top

#9 AH, where did the use occur? Did the use occur at the point of the keyboard or at the location where the software was housed and run. That's the problem with an internet use tax and one that has to be ultimately defined as per federal authority. Congress has played with that issue for over a decade. The problem is that each state is equal in the Senate with each trying to raise revenues back home. Some are willing to forgo the tax for employment and the revenue that is generated by such businesses.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-06-30 14:17|| 2011-06-30 14:17|| Front Page Top

#10 That's the problem with an internet use tax and one that has to be ultimately defined as per federal authority. I see no distinction between items purchased outside & delivered in-state, whether they are ordered over the internet, by phone or mail, or purchased out of state & transported back by the buyer (that's where the use occurs). It's all interstate commerce brought into the state. It would be different if the item were used and consumed or kept out of state altogether, but that has never been an issue. What's the federal issue here?
Massachusetts spying on its citizens' purchases out of state was simply laughable, and not the issue here.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-06-30 14:28|| 2011-06-30 14:28|| Front Page Top

#11 I read that Boing used to fly buyers out over the Pacific to sign the paperwork and make sales and that move avoided most if not all of the taxes. At some point Amazon could just set up in the Bahamas or something and avoid all taxes.

I don't like the idea of this new tax but if something like this doesn't happen the sales tax is somewhat doomed.

Posted by rjschwarz 2011-06-30 14:52|| 2011-06-30 14:52|| Front Page Top

#12 It's all interstate commerce brought into the state.

..and interstate commerce is the power of the federal government.

The problem presented in the California case is referrals. An owner of a website upon which a link is clicked and referred to Amazon et al may well have the website hosted in Kansas with the individual clicking on the link in Alabama to a Amazon server in Virginia. Just what part of that transaction occurred in California? And why just California and not multiple states?

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-06-30 15:04|| 2011-06-30 15:04|| Front Page Top

#13 AlanC, there's still a line on the MA income tax form that requires you to pay MA sales tax on estimated out-of-state purchases on which you didn't pay sales tax. Booze in NH, for example.

Tax cheats ignore it. I haven't heard of any prosecutions, but that's just me. "A felony a day" comes in handy when they need some.

Yes, MA taxes too much. Change the law.

Posted by KBK 2011-06-30 15:12|| 2011-06-30 15:12|| Front Page Top

#14 I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

State taxes are (purportedly) collected for the benefit if state residents, to be used to serve the residents (roads, schools, etc.). The people in the state should be paying state taxes; the businesses outside the state should not have to collect them for the state. Those out-of-state businesses in no way benefit from state programs and/or amenities.

Here's a free clue: if the states spent half the time they spend trying to think up new forms of ~~theft~~ taxes thinking about how they could cut their spending and what "programs" they could cut that aren't the state's business anyway, ~~and cut the graft,~~ they wouldn't need to continually raise taxes.

You'll notice I'm not holding my breath. >:-(

Posted by Barbara 2011-06-30 15:23|| 2011-06-30 15:23|| Front Page Top

#15 I read that Boing used to fly buyers out over the Pacific to sign the paperwork and make sales and that move avoided most if not all of the taxes.

Nothing new, really. Railroads have long taken delivery of locomotives and rolling stock in a tax-friendly state they had tracks in.

Posted by Pappy 2011-06-30 19:16|| 2011-06-30 19:16|| Front Page Top

23:47 European Conservative
23:09 Eohippus Phater7165
23:02 Eohippus Phater7165
22:38 Keystone
22:25 CincinnatusChili
22:23 Mikey Hunt
22:19 CincinnatusChili
22:04 CrazyFool
21:51 Pappy
21:36 JohnQC
20:56 no mo uro
20:48 Barbara
20:34 Frank G
20:32 Frank G
20:28 Frank G
20:24 Frank G
20:20 CrazyFool
20:17 CrazyFool
19:48 Zhang Fei
19:43 Glenmore
19:39 Eohippus Phater7165
19:38 Ebbang Uluque6305
19:16 Pappy
19:06 Pappy