Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 613 posts

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#331

Post by lightbyte »

Animats wrote: post #305
kels wrote: post #258

What no one is talking about here is how this would be handled, especially for a small online sellers. There are almost 10,000 tax jurisdictions ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mccon... ) and you're not allowed to collect sales tax unless you register for that jurisdiction. There is also a fee collected by most jurisdictions to register and most make you send in periodic reports, even if you…

See [1]. Sales tax as a service is available from seven different providers. Shopping cart integration is available. You pay one bill, they handle the rest. [1] http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/

So this is another needless regulation that creates more useless rent-seekers?

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#332

Post by eric_h »

panda888888 wrote: post #292
rbritton wrote: post #270

Something like ten years ago now, Washington State changed their sales tax requirements in a way that required the seller to look up the four-digit rate code of the buyer, both for determining the rate to charge and later for remitting to the state. The quarterly file they provide with this information is ~150000 rows. Prior to that date, you just reported for the jurisdiction in which the business was registered. Be…

Yep. The most annoying part is that tax jurisdictions don't correspond to ZIP codes. If they did, this would be so much easier.

As someone who grew up in a house who's mailing address and zip code were for a different town and county from the actual physical location of the house (it was just past the border) - I can't even begin to imagine how to actually do this completely correctly.

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#333

Post by beojan »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #300
moomin wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s zero national economic gain from _any_ variation in law from state to state, but either you’re in favour of state’s rights or you’re not.

>here’s zero national economic gain from _any_ variation in law from state to state Yes there is. States compete with each other and this prevents any one of them from having laws that are much crappier and more oppressive than average because when that happens businesses and people leave.

So competition might prevent one of many downsides to different states having different laws? I don't see why this means there's any benefit to that situation over just having one set of laws?

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#335

Post by myrandomcomment »

kels wrote: post #258

What no one is talking about here is how this would be handled, especially for a small online sellers. There are almost 10,000 tax jurisdictions ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mccon... ) and you're not allowed to collect sales tax unless you register for that jurisdiction. There is also a fee collected by most jurisdictions to register and most make you send in periodic reports, even if you…

Read the story...

"...South Dakota, whose law requires retailers with more than $100,000 in sales or 200 transactions annually in the state to pay a 4.5 percent tax on purchases"

"..Kennedy’s majority opinion strongly suggested the measure was constitutional, in part because it has the $100,000 threshold and doesn’t try to impose retroactive taxation."

A clear bar is set for what is covered here and what is a burden.

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#336

Post by eli_gottlieb »

lightbyte wrote: post #331
Animats wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See [1]. Sales tax as a service is available from seven different providers. Shopping cart integration is available. You pay one bill, they handle the rest. [1] http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/

So this is another needless regulation that creates more useless rent-seekers?

So the internet imposes a moral requirement for all states/provinces to have uniform sales taxes or value-added taxes?

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#337

Post by arbuge »

gnopgnip wrote: post #306
kels wrote: post #258

What no one is talking about here is how this would be handled, especially for a small online sellers. There are almost 10,000 tax jurisdictions ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mccon... ) and you're not allowed to collect sales tax unless you register for that jurisdiction. There is also a fee collected by most jurisdictions to register and most make you send in periodic reports, even if you…

There is a threshold in the South Dakota bill for $100k in sales in the state. Small online sellers are not affected

That's just the exemption SD chose to apply, and which they could change at any time. Other states may choose to not have such an exemption.

You are also now open to tax audits from all other states, since you may need to prove you are below any exemption limit.

It's a bad deal for small business no matter how you slice it. I think that if your revenue is below ~$100m annually, the future is beginning to look bleak. Very helpful to the big players like Amazon in killing off small competition.

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#338

Post by gnopgnip »

pwned1 wrote: post #39
TheCoreh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Payment processing services will most likely provide a solution to do this automatically. Charging credit cards is already pretty complicated, and they abstract it away already, so it would make sense for them to provide this as an additional service.

Agreed. I envision "tax compliance as a service" being offered by processors or third parties. My only question is then whether individual municipalities in states that allow them to have their own sales tax will also now be able to force compliance. If that's the case, what a nightmare for online retailers.

The supreme court decision was basically a refinement of what constitutes a nexus with respect to common carrier shipments. 200 sales, or $100k in revenue per year is what is reasonable here. It will be interesting to see what LA, Chicago, and NYC do to handle this specifically.

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#339

Post by forapurpose »

jedberg wrote: post #261
datamingle wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it from the perspective of the business selling goods. Then the quote makes more sense.

No it doesn't. The business isn't paying the tax. They are only collecting it on behalf of the taxing agency.

> The business isn't paying the tax

I despise Norquist, but I believe the words above are not true in a consequential sense. The law may say 'the state taxes the consumer', but who is meaningfully affected?

The business handles the mechanics of collecting and paying the tax. And whose pocket the tax really comes out of depends on the elasticity of demand, IIRC my economics. That is, it depends on how much the business can raise the price without hurting profits:

If the product is highly price sensitive, something like a can of peas, then the business can't raise the price very much without hurting demand and the tax will effectively come out of the business' profits. If the product is highly price insensitive, such as life-saving drugs, then the cost of the tax will be passed on to the consumer.

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#340

Post by msbarnett »

jatsign wrote: post #315
brlewis wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were a lawyer, I'd be able to tell you with great certainty and precision what all the reasons are why you shouldn't look for an answer to that question here.

True, but there probably aren't many lawyers who can answer the question either.

> True, but there probably aren't many lawyers who can answer the question either.

Strange take. On the contrary, there is an entire industry of lawyers who specialize in the ability to answer precisely this kind of question.

Post reply on HN