SCOTUS Reverses Itself - Online Buyers Must Pay Sale Tax 2 2

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

1 minute ago, jaybuck43 said:

Having to pay sales tax hasn't changed.  If you buy a book on the boards, you pay sales tax.  Just because the seller doesn't take the tax from you and pay it on your behalf, doesn't mean you aren't responsible for it (there's a box for it on your tax returns )  The holding means that states can compel companies to HOLD sales tax for you, even if they don't have a physical presence in the state.  But you were ALWAYS supposed to file it on your taxes.

[darkstar]

1 hour ago, blazingbob said:

Since I do not have a physical location in 50 states and only collect sales tax in NY you now have to multiply by 50 and to know 50 different states rules on when to collect or not collect sales tax.

I do collect sales tax at the conventions.  

Dumping this onto the states is not a good thing.  If the Supreme Court overruled this it should have one rule for the entire country as far as when to collect online sales tax or not.  

 

You aren't going to be stuck dealing with 50 different sets of rules, you are going to be stuck dealing with 10,000 since that is how many sales tax jurisdictions there are. 

[jcjames]

15 minutes ago, jaybuck43 said:

Having to pay sales tax hasn't changed.  If you buy a book on the boards, you pay sales tax.  Just because the seller doesn't take the tax from you and pay it on your behalf, doesn't mean you aren't responsible for it (there's a box for it on your tax returns )  The holding means that states can compel companies to HOLD sales tax for you, even if they don't have a physical presence in the state.  But you were ALWAYS supposed to file it on your taxes.

And a shockingly high 4% of people do (yes, I'm shocked it's even that high).

 

[FlyingDonut]

Move to Delaware, Montana, Oregon, or New Hampshire. Problem solved.

[darkstar]

10 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

Move to Delaware, Montana, Oregon, or New Hampshire. Problem solved.

Unless all of your buyers have moved to those states as well that doesn't solve anything.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

12 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

Move to Delaware, Montana, Oregon, or New Hampshire. Problem solved.

Don't think so........

[Murphman13]

2 hours ago, comicwiz said:

I'm sorry, but I will NEVER understand the reason why used goods need to be taxed more than once. I know it would open a huge can of worms for higher priced items such as home resale's, or used vehicles, but the tax regime usually structures itself around providing a "goods service." What service is being provided for an online transaction, when there's no middle-man other than shipper?

Sales tax was never about the age, condition or history of item(s) being bought/sold. It is a tax on the transaction of those items to a buyer in exchange for some form of consideration which is usually money. So no matter how many times the same item is resold, sales tax is owed on the transaction. Of course most wholesale sales are exempt but that's a different animal altogether.

In summary the sale of an Action 1 to a collector for 2 million right on down to the 25 cent cup of lemonade from the ten year old's roadside stand is taxable by law.

[darkstar]

2 minutes ago, Murphman13 said:

 So no matter how many times the same item is resold, sales tax is owed on the transaction.

Depends on the item and the jurisdiction involved.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Then there is nexus, and Use TaxSCOTUS is Fun!!!!!

[1Cool]

But couldn't E-Bay fairly easily collect a sales tax for every sale based on the tax info for each buyers location?  They would of course have to set up a program to transfer funds to each state for the collective sellers (maybe monthly) after collecting the taxes but in the electronic age I can't imagine it would be that tough.

[zosocane]

3 hours ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Congress has to fix this, first and foremost. States have to review their individual practices, to consider the impact of their application of the tax as it now stands, vs. the South Dakota position.

It ain't over until it is over. It is not a matter of used goods. That is over simplifying, I think.

Remember that the POTUS has to sign whatever legislation Congress passes that would fix this.  And Jeff Bezos will now regret buying the Washington Post because Trump will do him (and, by extension, Amazon) zero favors at this point.

Edited June 21, 2018 by zosocane

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Just now, zosocane said:

Remember that the POTUS has to sign whatever legislation Congress passes that would fix this.  And Jeff Bezos will now regret buying the Washington Post because Trump will do him zero favors at this point.

I very much doubt that is an issue. The seller, the seller, the seller. Note that Amazon benefits, not loses, as the decision now stands.

[zosocane]

 

47 minutes ago, FlyingDonut said:

Move to Delaware, Montana, Oregon, or New Hampshire. Problem solved.

In Florida, because HA has a small office there, all HA auction wins by Florida residents are subject to 7% sales tax.  On auction wins even over just $300 or so, the tax starts to add up.  For that reason, I'm out of the bidding on any keys or semi-keys on HA.  I suspect most Florida residents feel the same way, unless they want a book badly enough that they're willing to pay the extra 7% on top of the hammer price + buyer's premium.

[zosocane]

1 minute ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

I very much doubt that is an issue. The seller, the seller, the seller. Note that Amazon benefits, not loses, as the decision now stands.

How does Amazon benefit?  Assuming a state requires Amazon to collect state sales tax on a state resident buyer, doesn't Amazon just pass through the tax to the buyer and require the buyer to cough up the state sales tax?  Causing the overall purchase price to be more inflated than the sticker price the buyer originally saw when they stuck into into the online shopping cart?

[darkstar]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

I very much doubt that is an issue. The seller, the seller, the seller. Note that Amazon benefits, not loses, as the decision now stands.

This is not good news for Amazon.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

2 minutes ago, zosocane said:

How does Amazon benefit?  Assuming a state requires Amazon to collect state sales tax on a state resident buyer, doesn't Amazon just pass through the tax to the buyer and require the buyer to cough up the state sales tax?  Causing the overall purchase price to be more inflated than the sticker price the buyer originally saw when they stuck into into the online shopping cart?

Think this thru.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

3 minutes ago, darkstar said:

This is not good news for Amazon.

See above reply.

[zosocane]

 

Just now, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

Think this thru.

No, I'm not smart.  Please explain, since you know the answer.

[darkstar]

2 minutes ago, zosocane said:

How does Amazon benefit?  Assuming a state requires Amazon to collect state sales tax on a state resident buyer, doesn't Amazon just pass through the tax to the buyer and require the buyer to cough up the state sales tax?  Causing the overall purchase price to be more inflated than the sticker price the buyer originally saw when they stuck into into the online shopping cart?

Amazon itself already does this, but the third party sellers that use Amazon do not. This is bad for Amazon because it has the potential to cripple small, independent sellers that use their site and also the buyers who use these third party sellers, since purchase price is going to increase.

[darkstar]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Mcknowitall said:

See above reply.

There is nothing to see above. You can look at Amazon's stock price over the past few hours for further confirmation after reading my earlier explanation.