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

551–560 of 613 posts

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

#551

Post by nkurz »

astdb wrote: post #518
nkurz wrote: post #135

The actual (quite readable) Supreme Court decision is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf Most of the coverage I've seen downplays it, but it should be noted that the question is not whether tax is owed on these out-of-state internet purchases, but whether the retailer should be required to collect it and submit it to the state. Currently, the purchaser is (in 45 of 50 states) legally re…

Is the opinion pdf formatted with LaTeX? Couldn't help noticing the margins etc.

Others have asked, and despite some surface similarity the answer seems to be "no": https://www.reddit.com/r/LaTeX/comments/1galio/does_the_gove...

It doesn't address the LaTeX question, but this page had some interesting details on the style guide for Supreme Court opinions: https://lawyerist.com/style-guide-supreme-court/

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

#552

Post by mikeash »

shagie wrote: post #549
mikeash wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments need to fund their operations, and allowing some businesses to dodge taxes because of arbitrary geographical differences is unfair and distorts markets.

One should note that its not the businesses that are dodging taxes, but rather citizens of the state that are dodging taxes (and not reporting them). From The Tax You Probably Forgot To Report ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2013/04/15/the-ta... ) > Think you got a great deal not paying sales tax on your online purchases last year? In most states, there’s a pesky tax called “use tax” that you are suppose…

Good point, technically the businesses haven't been doing anything wrong, it's really more of a loophole than a dodge.

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

#553

Post by zrobotics »

pseingatl wrote: post #538
dsr_ wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States of America is, in the terms of other countries, 50 states that have given up certain powers and responsibilities to a federal government but retain their own powers, including the ability to set tax policy inside their own borders. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This has been widely…

More importantly, it is now clear that American States can tax non-residents, even FOREIGN non-residents who have no connection with the U.S. whatsoever. There will be collateral consequences to this decision. For example, why should I have to pay out-of-state university tuition if I became a state taxpayer due to the sales--and soon to come other--taxes? Drive a car into my state? You have to pay a roads tax. It wil…

>>For example, why should I have to pay out-of-state university tuition if I became a state taxpayer due to the sales--and soon to come other--taxes?

Did you pay income tax in the state, which will be what supports the university? Congrats, you get in-state tuition.

>>Drive a car into my state? You have to pay a roads tax.

Two points: 1) you are using the roads in the state, why can't you fund them? 2) that tax already exists, you pay it when you buy gas.

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

#554

Post by naikrovek »

justonepost wrote: post #499
ajross wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$100k of South Dakota revenue is either an almost exclusively local single-owner business or a much larger internet shop. But regardless, that kind of number is a full time job. If you're selling over the internet and making a full time job out of it, you can handle computing sales tax for SD residents. Yes, it's burdensome. Yes, it would be good to have a simpler federal framework for this. No, it's not the end of t…

At like a 10% profit (in the best case), that's a pretty terrible full time job.

You are grossly underestimating the markup on goods sold online.

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

#555

Post by patates »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #545
scarface74 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bank transfer fees have nothing to do with the fees charged when taking payments via credit cards. While the average EU interchange fee for taking credit cards is cheaper than in the US, it’s not “less than a penny” https://www.valuepenguin.com/interchange-fees-na-vs-eu

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Credit cards are mostly supplied by a couple huge companies that aren't interested in improving their rates. It's very rent-seeking, even though there are very feasible alternatives that cost an order of magnitude or two less.

> Credit cards are mostly supplied by a couple huge companies that aren't interested in improving their rates.

This situation is called an oligopoly. I don't think it has something to do with government sanctioned rent seeking.

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

#556

Post by alfredallan1 »

myrandomcomment wrote: post #335
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.

This is probably a very simple question, buy will someone please clarify: $100K in sales - does that mean: 1) $100K worth of (3rd party, for an ecommerce platform) product sold via the platform, or 2) $100K revenue accruing to the platform, as the commission earned on sales of whatever amount.

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

#558

Post by michaelmrose »

wildmusings wrote: post #546
michaelmrose wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it? Why in particular wouldn't the fact that you are required to pay for their services allow the entire industry to jack up prices substantially? Why wants to win by being the asshole who did it for $500 instead of say a percentage of revenue?

> Why would it? Why in particular wouldn't the fact that you are required to pay for their services allow the entire industry to jack up prices substantially? Basic economic principles. You compete by lowering your price. So more competing providers would make it highly likely that price moves closer to cost, because there is a higher chance that one will defect from the current price structure. To put it plainly. Yo…

Please see the price of epi pins

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

#559

Post by SubiculumCode »

mikeash wrote: post #537
SubiculumCode wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does one legally define where one buys a product? Shipping address? Home address? Point of sale?

Seems to be the shipping address.

Then is shipping to an intermediary low-tax address (as a service) followed by a separate shipping event to your home an illegal circumvention?

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

#560

Post by Dylan16807 »

patates wrote: post #555
Dylan16807 wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's kind of the point. Credit cards are mostly supplied by a couple huge companies that aren't interested in improving their rates. It's very rent-seeking, even though there are very feasible alternatives that cost an order of magnitude or two less.

> Credit cards are mostly supplied by a couple huge companies that aren't interested in improving their rates. This situation is called an oligopoly. I don't think it has something to do with government sanctioned rent seeking.

Government-sanctioned rent-seekers are not the only kind. The comment by User23 was about payment system rent-seekers in general, with no mention of the government.
Post reply on HN