Internet Sales Tax

[indago]

Sales taxes are added on after.

Here is an example of an online sales invoice, and I don't see where "Sales taxes are added on after." How do you know that they are not embedded within the cost of the item?

[tailfins]

Here is an example of an online sales invoice, and I don't see where "Sales taxes are added on after." How do you know that they are not embedded within the cost of the item?

Try using a shipping address that is in the same state as the seller.

[indago]

Some have argued that the reason to buy online is to avoid paying a sales tax. Here is an example of an item to buy online:

Oster Professional 103 Stim-U-Lax Massager

Sold by: myBeautyWarehouse.............$81.99

Sold by: Quick E Shop........................$83.95

Sold by: DiscountsJungle....................$74.95

Sold by: always bargain.....................$74.99

Sold by: BYPLE.................................$89.00

Sold by superior sales.......................$89.95

Sold by: Best Buy Beauty & Barber......$84.99

Sold by SKYBOK..............................$143.28

page

Which one would you buy, and why?

[fj1200]

Here is an example of an online sales invoice, and I don't see where "Sales taxes are added on after." How do you know that they are not embedded within the cost of the item?

You don't see "sales taxes added on after" because sales taxes were not added on after. Why would they have a 'sales tax' line and then embed the sales tax within the price. Further, I'm not aware of any state that requires the sales tax be embedded in the price. If you have an example showing otherwise I'd be happy to be wrong.

The issue with sales taxes and on-line purchases is that retailers are not required to collect and remit sales tax unless the retailer has a physical location in the same state as the buyer. That is why when you buy something from Best Buy (for example) you will always see sales tax added to the price (if applicable) and why some obscure website with one location in one state will not be adding sales tax on purchases to buyers in another state. Does that make sense now?

[indago]

You don't see "sales taxes added on after" because sales taxes were not added on after. Why would they have a 'sales tax' line and then embed the sales tax within the price. Further, I'm not aware of any state that requires the sales tax be embedded in the price. If you have an example showing otherwise I'd be happy to be wrong.

The issue with sales taxes and on-line purchases is that retailers are not required to collect and remit sales tax unless the retailer has a physical location in the same state as the buyer. That is why when you buy something from Best Buy (for example) you will always see sales tax added to the price (if applicable) and why some obscure website with one location in one state will not be adding sales tax on purchases to buyers in another state. Does that make sense now?

Every business is required to keep books and records, and to render them up for examination by the State at the State's discretion. In the case of Miles Laboratories v Simon (33 Federal Supplement 962), a case concerning the state sales tax, it is declared: "The tax has been held to be a privilege fee imposed upon persons doing business at retail. ...The tax is not imposed upon the consumer, but upon those 'engaged in the business of making sales at retail, as hereinbefore defined.'"

It was also noted that the company has the option of adding the sales tax amount to the receipt or not to. Some stores have a fixed price on their goods, and when you go to the register to pay, the price that is on the price tag is the price that is charged. The tax that the company is liable for has already been included in the price as a cost of doing business. Most stores, however, calculate the tax and place it on the receipt, making it appear that the customer is the one liable for the tax.

Make sense now???

[fj1200]

Make sense now???

That it essentially restated what I told you?

Every business is required to keep books and records, and to render them up for examination by the State at the State's discretion. In the case of Miles Laboratories v Simon (33 Federal Supplement 962), a case concerning the state sales tax, it is declared: "The tax has been held to be a privilege fee imposed upon persons doing business at retail. ...The tax is not imposed upon the consumer, but upon those 'engaged in the business of making sales at retail, as hereinbefore defined.'"

It was also noted that the company has the option of adding the sales tax amount to the receipt or not to. Some stores have a fixed price on their goods, and when you go to the register to pay, the price that is on the price tag is the price that is charged. The tax that the company is liable for has already been included in the price as a cost of doing business. Most stores, however, calculate the tax and place it on the receipt, making it appear that the customer is the one liable for the tax.

Here is something that is actually on point though.

In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court ruled that a business must have a physical presence in a state for that state to require it to collect sales taxes. However, the court explicitly stated that Congress can overrule the decision through legislation.^[1]

[indago]

From The Associated Press 11 March 2011:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two major Internet retailers followed through Friday on threats to cut ties with Illinois businesses over a new law requiring them to collect sales taxes. Amazon.com Inc. and Overstock.com Inc. both announced they're dumping Illinois-based "affiliates" -- people and businesses that refer customers to the Internet giants and then collect a commission on any sales. Under the new law, having affiliates in Illinois requires an Internet company to collect sales taxes on all transactions with Illinois customers. Amazon said it will end relations with Illinois affiliates on April 15. Overstock said it will do the same on May 1. Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn signed the law Thursday. The companies call it unconstitutional because they don't have offices, warehouses or personnel in Illinois.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The "Internet retailers" did the right thing. It is the obligation of the State to collect the sales taxes from the businesses that are licensed to do business within that State. Why should an internet "middleman" do their work for them?

"The Department of Revenue is the primary agency for collecting tax revenues that support state and local governments in Mississippi."


http://www.dor.ms.gov/

[fj1200]

Every business is required to keep books and records, and to render them up for examination by the State at the State's discretion. In the case of Miles Laboratories v Simon (33 Federal Supplement 962), a case concerning the state sales tax, it is declared: "The tax has been held to be a privilege fee imposed upon persons doing business at retail. ...The tax is not imposed upon the consumer, but upon those 'engaged in the business of making sales at retail, as hereinbefore defined.'"

It was also noted that the company has the option of adding the sales tax amount to the receipt or not to. Some stores have a fixed price on their goods, and when you go to the register to pay, the price that is on the price tag is the price that is charged. The tax that the company is liable for has already been included in the price as a cost of doing business. Most stores, however, calculate the tax and place it on the receipt, making it appear that the customer is the one liable for the tax.

Make sense now???

BTW, where did this come from? I did a search and all I could find is posts that you seem to have made on multiple forums?

[indago]

BTW, where did this come from? I did a search and all I could find is posts that you seem to have made on multiple forums?

It's in the OP!

[fj1200]

It's in the OP!

Ah, I can't find a link to the Miles Laboratories decision.

[indago]

Ah, I can't find a link to the Miles Laboratories decision.

Try the law library...

[fj1200]

Try the law library...

Ah, so it's up to others to just accept your posts. Not particularly likely when your OP is flawed as pointed out.

In re: Miles. A 1940 decision. You don't think something may have changed in the MFTA since then? It is possible. And even what you state is suspect per the decision:

Counsel agree that the precise question is without precedent in any jurisdiction, although it seems that one or two of the state fair trade acts in express terms require addition of the sales tax to established minimum retail prices. The Michigan act, as already pointed out, is silent in this respect.The sales tax being, therefore, merely a privilege fee exacted from the retailer by the State for the right of doing business and there appearing to be no obligation on the part of the retailer to pass the amount of the tax on to the consumer, it should be held that the minimum prices established by plaintiff are met when they are exacted without addition of the tax. No violation of the Michigan Fair Trade Act ensues thereby.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/194099533FSupp962_1721

The case wasn't even about sales taxes.

Your Washington link was also short of all the relevant information:

• The seller is liable to the Department of Revenue for sales tax, whether or not it is collected.
• Use tax is paid by the consumer when the retail sales tax was not collected by the seller/service provider.

http://dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesa...etailsalestax/

Invoices from out-of-state vendors

If you know the out-of-state vendor has an in-state business presence, contact the vendor and ask why sales tax wasn’t charged. Depending on the response, you may want to ask them to send a new invoice that includes sales tax.

However, many out-of-state businesses have no business presence, or “nexus,” in Washington. Such businesses are not required to register with the Department of Revenue and are not required to charge retail sales tax to their Washington customers.

If you purchase goods from one of these businesses, you must pay use tax to the Department on the value of your purchases. You can pay use tax by using either a Consumer Use Tax Return (if you are not a registered business) or the use tax lines on your Excise Tax Return. Be sure to make a note on the invoice when you pay use tax in this manner.

http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOr...onInvoice.aspx

[tailfins]

Ah, so it's up to others to just accept your posts. Not particularly likely when your OP is flawed as pointed out.

In re: Miles. A 1940 decision. You don't think something may have changed in the MFTA since then? It is possible. And even what you state is suspect per the decision:



http://www.leagle.com/decision/194099533FSupp962_1721

The case wasn't even about sales taxes.

Your Washington link was also short of all the relevant information:


http://dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesa...etailsalestax/


http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOr...onInvoice.aspx

Use taxes are generally not enforced. Some Gestapo like tactics to enforce them have been met with huge public resistance. For example, Massachusetts State Police officers tried taking down license plate numbers of cars at New Hampshire Wal-Marts, with the intent of prosecuting those that didn't file any use tax. If I remember correctly, the NH police threatened to arrest the MA police for loitering.

Why are you cheerleading for more ways for ordinary citizens to be taxed?

[indago]

Use taxes are generally not enforced. Some Gestapo like tactics to enforce them have been met with huge public resistance. For example, Massachusetts State Police officers tried taking down license plate numbers of cars at New Hampshire Wal-Marts, with the intent of prosecuting those that didn't file any use tax. If I remember correctly, the NH police threatened to arrest the MA police for loitering.

Why are you cheerleading for more ways for ordinary citizens to be taxed?

Yes, only a government toady would declare that a law can be made to subvert the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The individual has no obligation whatsoever to deliver up his papers and effects to anyone, let alone governments.

Bill of Rights and Most State Constitutions: "The person, houses, papers and possessions of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures."

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. ...Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation." — Hale v Henkel 201 US 43, 74 (1905)

An order was issued by government to produce certain papers for examination, or the allegations of government would be admitted as confessed. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the Court, noting the argument of government that the order did not authorize a search and seizure, but ordered that the papers be produced by defendant. Justice Bradley declared:

"That is so; but it declares that if he does not produce them, the allegations which it is affirmed they will prove shall be taken as confessed. This is tantamount to compelling their production; ...It is true that certain aggravating incidents of actual search and seizure, such as forcible entry into a man's house and searching amongst his papers, are wanting, ...but it accomplishes the substantial object of those acts in forcing from a party evidence against himself. It is our opinion, therefore, that a compulsory production of a man's private papers to establish a criminal charge against him, or to forfeit his property, is within the scope of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, in all cases in which a search and seizure would be; because it is a material ingredient, and effects the sole object and purpose of search and seizure." — 116 US 616

[indago]

Ah, so it's up to others to just accept your posts. Not particularly likely when your OP is flawed as pointed out.

Only in your wildest hallucinations...