10 replies to this topic

[LLC]

Re: the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013
 
When a transaction crosses state lines that means
that if if the company I am purchasing an item
from does NOT have a physical presence in the
state of North Carolina it is a violation of
interstate commerce law for the state of
North Carolina to force me to pay sales tax
as ONLY the US GOVERNMENT CAN regulate and TAX
INTERSTATE COMMERCE under the US Constitution.
 
To US Senators and US congress people representing NC:
I want you to block (filibuster) AND vote NO on
the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 as I should
NOT BE FORCED TO PAY SALES TAX for
tansactions THAT CROSS STATE LINES
WHEN THAT COMPANY HAS NO physical
presence in the state of North Carolina
 
Bill to force sales tax collection reintroduced
(Yahoo News article)
smallbusiness.yahoo.com advisor bill-force-sales-tax-collection-reintroduced-230142131

[Stevphfeniey]

The country's bankrupt, deal with it

[LLC]

I have no idea what this is a tax on.

 

That said, you americans get away with cheaper things than us, so idk.

 

Although meanwhile, apparently you have lolhigh business tax - it's just dodged via lots of loopholes.

 

Your State has a sales tax - if you buy something in a store you pay sales tax - however

 

if you buy something from a companies website that

HAS NO PHYSICAL presence in your state - then you DO NOT PAY SALES TAX DUE TO

US interstate commerce rules that say that states CAN NOT REGULATE OR TAX interstate commerce

 

Under this law (if passed)

 

1) say if you live in NH (no sales tax) and order something from a company in CA

under the law the company would be forced to charge you CA sales tax

 

2) it would upsert the US GOVERNMENT's EXCLUSIVE regulation and taxation of interstate commerce

(currently the states can not tax interstate commerce sales unless a company has a physical presence - a physical store or warehouse etc)

 

2a) currently a company must have a physical presence (physical store or warehouse etc) in a sales tax state for that state to force the payment of sales tax on internet sales that cross state borders (where the seller is in state #1, and the buyer is in state #2) is has been ruled by the US courts as interstate commerce that in the abscess of the companies physical presence (a physical store or warehouse etc in state #2) then the state then legally can not force the paying of state sales tax - this proposed law would force the payment of sales tax regardless of wither or not the company has a physical presence in the state thus over stepping the various states authority as specified in the US Constitution

 

3) you would probably in the future under the law be forced to pay TWO sales taxes on one online transaction:

for example: CA sales tax (where the seller is) and NC sales tax (where you live)

[LLC]

Wait so one state wants to do a thing that's the big-governments job?

 
en.wikipedia.org wiki Commerce_Clause

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress."  It is not uncommon to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: The Foreign Commerce Clause, theInterstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.

 
Interstate Taxation and the Commerce Clause - law2.umkc.edu faculty projects ftrials conlaw interstatetax
 
thefreelibrary.com State taxation of interstate commerce a018130785

In the past few years, the Supreme Court has decided a surprisingly large number of cases concerning the constitutionality of state taxes on interstate commerce.

The High Court long has deemed unconstitutional any state taxes that burden interstate commerce. The ability to challenge state and local taxes on constitutional grounds is a powerful and important tool for business litigators. Recent Supreme Court decisions have clarified the test that is applied in evaluating the constitutionality of these taxes and also the procedures for objecting to them. 

From 1873 to 1977, the Court applied the rule that a state may not directly tax interstate commerce. The Court invalidated a wide variety of state taxes, including a gross receipts tax on interstate sales, a sales tax on interstate sales, and a license tax on solicitors of orders for interstate sales. The justices, however, allowed taxes that were deemed to have only an "indirect burden" on interstate commerce.

[Stevphfeniey]

I still fail to see the issue

[LLC]

I still fail to see the issue

 
State Governments over stepping their bounds as stated by the US Consitution, thus costing everyone money in additional (ILLEGAL per the US Consitution) sales taxes on purchases that cross state lines

[Concagh98]

To be honest, boo hoo. Americans will still pay a fraction of the tax most Europeans pay, and you don't quite appretiate that if America's debt hole isn't fixed, the rest of the world will go down with it.

Potus: "a Swede pays tax more willingly than a Californian because he gets good schools and free healthcare".

[TheOmnipotentAmerican]

As a fellow North Carolinian, I agree with the OP.

 

People who keep saying we need to tax more to fix our debt hole are just wrong, the answer to debt is not more taxes, but LESS SPENDING.

[ChiJohnAok]

As a fellow North Carolinian, I agree with the OP.

People who keep saying we need to tax more to fix our debt hole are just wrong, the answer to debt is not more taxes, but LESS SPENDING.

Agreed, there is too muh spending.

As example (slightly off topic), people are bemoaning the "draconian cuts" to the federal budget should the sequester kick in on March 1.
The approx. $85 billion reduction in spending is not actually a cut. It is merely a reduction in the growth of spending.
The federal government spent more this year than last year; and will spend more next year than it does this year; even with the "draconian" cuts of the sequester.

Back to topic, I disagree with states collecting sales taxes for products purchased online from a retailer who is out of state.
There are certainly constitutional issue that come into play.

[SirMoo]

About a month late on this...

 

LLC, your formating of posts always sucks.

 

But let me explain this more clearly for most people.

 

Example 1: Say you live in Florida and you're buying ONLINE from Moo Corp. Moo Corp is based in Texas and only has an office in Texas. If you bought from Florida you would NOT pay the Texas sales tax (nor Florida sales tax). (Keep in mind that this sales tax does NOT go to the US Government, but instead goes to the State, County, and City of the company. Or State and County in the case that the business is located outside of city limits).

 

Example 2: Now lets say that Moo Corp is based in Texas, however our shipping operations are located in Florida. When you place your online order from Florida you will be charged Florida sales tax and if you order from Texas you will pay Texas sales tax. All other states will not have to pay tax.

 

The problem comes from Example 1. Florida wants sales tax from Moo Corp for the order being in their state, however Moo Corp is not currently required to give them anything.

 

Contrary to what LLC seems to think... This IS protected by the commerce clause. As the sale was done from one state to another this will fall under interstate commerce. The cited Supreme Court cases relate to Texas and Florida (For this example) creating a deal that they will charge sales tax between their two states. This is illegal as the burden to tax interstate commerce is held with the Federal Government. It could be argued however, that if the Federal Government passes this into law, it would be complaint with the interstate commerce regulations since it's a federal law giving them permission. Furthermore, it could be possible that a federal agency collects the tax and not that state then gives it to the state it is owed to thus by passing the policy anyway.

 

Nonetheless, this isn't target at small business as much as large retailers to do 1 million in sales outside of their home state.

[LLC]

This bill will only hurt the businesses in states with sales taxes, as people will react by purchasing from companies in tax free states (NH etc) or will delay or eliminate purchases altogether.
 
If this passes look for an increase in out-of-state PO Boxes and Storage Unit rentals in tax free states to avoid sales tax
(UPS delivers to Storage Units) with people saving all of their money for once a year mega purchases to avoid tax
 

en.wikipedia.org wiki Sales tax
 
" Some people consider sales taxes to be regressive; that is, they believe that the tax imposes a greater burden on low-income families than wealthy families. " ...
 
Enforcement of tax on remote sales

In the United States, every state with a sales tax law has a use tax component in that law applying to purchases from out-of-state mail order, catalog and e-commerce vendors, a category also known as "remote sales".    As e-commerce sales have grown in recent years, noncompliance (the  baby liberal states are angry over having to follow limits set by the US Supreme Court in the 1967 decision on National Bellas Hess v. Illinois) with use tax has had a growing impact on state revenues. These States =   Babies    The Congressional Budget Office estimated that uncollected use taxes on remote sales in 2003 could be as high as $20.4 billion. Uncollected use tax on remote sales was projected to run as high as $54.8 billion for 2011.  

 Enforcement of the tax on remote sales, however, is difficult. Unless the vendor has a physical location, or nexus, within a state, the vendor cannot be required to collect tax for that state. This limitation was defined as part of the Dormant Commerce Clause by the Supreme Court in the 1967 decision on National Bellas Hess v. Illinois. An attempt to require a Delaware e-commerce vendor to collect North Dakota tax was overturned by the court in the 1992 decision on Quill Corp. v. North Dakota.
 
The Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 established a commission to study the possibility of internet taxation, but the commission did not make any formal recommendations. In a report in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office warned of the economic burden of a "multiplicity of tax systems, particularly for smaller firms".
 
In an effort to reduce the burden of compliance with the tax laws of multiple jurisdictions, the Streamlined Sales Tax Project was organized in March 2000. Cooperative efforts in this project by 44 state governments and the District of Columbia eventually produced the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement in 2010. This agreement establishes standards necessary for simplified and uniform sales tax laws. As of December 2010, 24 states had passed legislation conforming with the agreement. Whether the Streamlined Sales Tax can actually be applied to remote sales ultimately depends upon Congressional support, because the 1992 Quill v. North Dakota decision determined that only the U.S. Congress has the authority to enact INTERSTATE TAXES "

In the United States, online retailers who have no physical presence in a given state can ship goods to customers there without collecting that state's sales tax, because as of 2011, there is no federal sales tax. Amazon.com has been criticized for not collecting sales tax, and has intentionally disaffiliated itself from businesses in certain states to continue doing so legally.

 
 
BTW, sorry you do not like my "formatting"    but I do the best I can (and it would be far worse were it not for Google Chrome's spell checker) 

 

About a month late on this...
 
LLC, your formating of posts always sucks.
 
But let me explain this more clearly for most people.
 
Example 1: Say you live in Florida and you're buying ONLINE from Moo Corp. Moo Corp is based in Texas and only has an office in Texas. If you bought from Florida you would NOT pay the Texas sales tax (nor Florida sales tax). (Keep in mind that this sales tax does NOT go to the US Government, but instead goes to the State, County, and City of the company. Or State and County in the case that the business is located outside of city limits).
 
Example 2: Now lets say that Moo Corp is based in Texas, however our shipping operations are located in Florida. When you place your online order from Florida you will be charged Florida sales tax and if you order from Texas you will pay Texas sales tax. All other states will not have to pay tax.
 
The problem comes from Example 1. Florida wants sales tax from Moo Corp for the order being in their state, however Moo Corp is not currently required to give them anything.
 
Contrary to what LLC seems to think... This IS protected by the commerce clause. As the sale was done from one state to another this will fall under interstate commerce. The cited Supreme Court cases relate to Texas and Florida (For this example) creating a deal that they will charge sales tax between their two states. This is illegal as the burden to tax interstate commerce is held with the Federal Government. It could be argued however, that if the Federal Government passes this into law, it would be complaint with the interstate commerce regulations since it's a federal law giving them permission. Furthermore, it could be possible that a federal agency collects the tax and not that state then gives it to the state it is owed to thus by passing the policy anyway.
 
Nonetheless, this isn't target at small business as much as large retailers to do 1 million in sales outside of their home state.