Live data from Hacker News

States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

bloomberg.com

1–10 of 613 posts

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

#2
This is good news for the country, even if it's bad for my wallet. The prior state of affairs was absurd. Online retailers already have major advantages in terms of convenience and inventory. Getting a N% discount vs. brick and mortar by not charging taxes was completely unnecessary.

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

#3
I find it hard to argue with from a fairness perspective. Clearly, retail is in a much different place from when Quill was decided. My concern is more in how a mom & pop online shop operating independently complies as a practical matter, which means not only collecting the right amount for different types of items but presumably remitting and filing with a huge number of different tax jurisdictions.

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

#5
post #3

I find it hard to argue with from a fairness perspective. Clearly, retail is in a much different place from when Quill was decided. My concern is more in how a mom & pop online shop operating independently complies as a practical matter, which means not only collecting the right amount for different types of items but presumably remitting and filing with a huge number of different tax jurisdictions.

We’ve been looking at tech solutions for calculation / remittance. So far only found Avalara. I’d be surprised if PayPal, Stripe, and others won’t step into this now that it’ll be fairly profitable.

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

#8
The situation for retailers shipping to states where they have no physical presence reminds me of the situation of foreign retailers with significant online sales to customers in the EU.

In each case, the seller (who has no physical or other presence in X) is required to collect tax from the buyer (a resident of X) and remit it to the tax authorities in X.

The tax is owed by a resident of X, to the tax authorities in X. But the tax authorities in X want someone outside X to collect it on their behalf.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia, some states charge sellers sales tax, and others do it the way I assumed (tax is charged to buyers, but collected by sellers).

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

#9

This is good news for the country, even if it's bad for my wallet. The prior state of affairs was absurd. Online retailers already have major advantages in terms of convenience and inventory. Getting a N% discount vs. brick and mortar by not charging taxes was completely unnecessary.

Yes. But it is too late. AMZN has already wiped out all local retail. AMZN not enforcing local taxes was a huge win - in the early days.

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

#10
post #3

I find it hard to argue with from a fairness perspective. Clearly, retail is in a much different place from when Quill was decided. My concern is more in how a mom & pop online shop operating independently complies as a practical matter, which means not only collecting the right amount for different types of items but presumably remitting and filing with a huge number of different tax jurisdictions.

In Colorado you're already asked when filing state taxes what the value of the goods you bought online that haven't been taxed yet, so the onus is on the filer to look up receipts from the year for tax purposes.

Amazon already collects tax in Colorado, but a few smaller retailers will send you a letter at the end of the year totaling up your untaxed purchases. Since different counties and localities collect different rates, it's hard to get the total tax right at the time of sale.

Post reply on HN