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

121–130 of 613 posts

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

#121

Post by jandrese »

xoail wrote: post #91
rossdavidh wrote: post #20

I have a hunch that this will, in the end, be a massive win for large retailers vs. small ones. The task of figuring out how to calculate tax for all states is more or less the same amount of work regardless of size, which means for someone like Amazon it's more or less trivial, but for a mom-and-pop store it's a major hassle.

Would love to see Stripe provide an API for this.

Seems like there should already be a service that does this. It's just static data, a microservice would be easy to run.

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

#122

Post by xienze »

chasil wrote: post #35
ghaff wrote: 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.

I live in an Illinois border community, and work in Iowa. I wonder what tax would be collected if I close an Ebay transaction in Iowa, but have the products shipped to my address in Illinois.

Technically you're supposed to pay your state's tax, even for a purchase where you were physically in another state. Even if that other state actually charges its own sales tax!

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

#123

Post by jcborro »

sdhgaiojfsa wrote: post #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.

The unintended consequence may be to drive business offshore. The de minimis import duty was quadrupled to $800 a few years ago (meaning no duty while US retailers pay duty buying in bulk and incorporate into the US price) and this could be yet another advantage handed to sellers outside the country.

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

#124

Post by deathanatos »

djsumdog wrote: post #100
rossdavidh wrote: post #20

I have a hunch that this will, in the end, be a massive win for large retailers vs. small ones. The task of figuring out how to calculate tax for all states is more or less the same amount of work regardless of size, which means for someone like Amazon it's more or less trivial, but for a mom-and-pop store it's a major hassle.

Many online payment gateways already offer some kind of sales tax API. Keep in mind in California, sales tax changes per county. In places like Tennessee, the tax rate can change if your item is a grocery or isn't a grocery. There are companies that already sell massive lookup tables or API access to calculate a lot of this stuff. I think for most retailers, this won't be that big a change. Most mom-and-pop online st…

Tennessee also has a "Sales Tax Holiday" on which certain items are tax exempt during certain times (during the holiday). And because we know how much programmers love date and time manipulations, it starts on "the last Friday in July" (I mean, it kinda had to, to be a weekend).

[1]: https://www.tn.gov/revenue/taxes/sales-and-use-tax/sales-tax...

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

#126

Post by gregrata »

gregrata wrote: post #125

Isn't this at some level taxation without representation? If I don't like how some other state is taxing, I can't alter that behaviour by voting. At least in my current state I might have a chance to do so.

(and yeah, I get this already happens if, for example, I visit the state. Just seems to be different in this case)

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

#127

Post by opsroller »

gregrata wrote: post #125

Isn't this at some level taxation without representation? If I don't like how some other state is taxing, I can't alter that behaviour by voting. At least in my current state I might have a chance to do so.

So buy from a retailer in your state.

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

#128

Post by Analemma_ »

curun1r wrote: post #34
seibelj wrote: post #22

Software engineers and entrepreneurs are extremely clever, numerous solutions will arise to integrate with all of the major ecommerce platforms to automate this. This won't be much of a burden on business. As long as regulations are clearly defined (unlike GDPR) the industry will deal. Uncertainty is always the biggest risk.

That depends on whether this decision gets extended to the municipal-level taxes. That's where things get really complex. The geo-boundaries on the areas where taxes are enforced aren't limited to simple city boundaries. Street number or side of the street (odd/even addresses) can matter. And taxes can vary depending not just on location, but also the items purchased. It's a nightmare scenario for internet businesses…

> If internet stores are required to support all locations, it will be a huge disadvantage.

Who said anything about internet stores being required to support all locations? Nothing is stopping an e-commerce outfit from restricting sales to a particular state, or county, or city, and simplifying their tax situation considerably. And brick-and-mortar chains with multiple locations already have to deal with these rules.

I don't see the "huge disadvantage" you're talking about.

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

#129

Post by gist »

djsumdog wrote: post #100
rossdavidh wrote: post #20

I have a hunch that this will, in the end, be a massive win for large retailers vs. small ones. The task of figuring out how to calculate tax for all states is more or less the same amount of work regardless of size, which means for someone like Amazon it's more or less trivial, but for a mom-and-pop store it's a major hassle.

Many online payment gateways already offer some kind of sales tax API. Keep in mind in California, sales tax changes per county. In places like Tennessee, the tax rate can change if your item is a grocery or isn't a grocery. There are companies that already sell massive lookup tables or API access to calculate a lot of this stuff. I think for most retailers, this won't be that big a change. Most mom-and-pop online st…

> There are companies that already sell massive lookup tables or API access to calculate a lot of this stuff. I think for most retailers, this won't be that big a change.

Ok great so you know the tax to collect. How do you remit to a vast amount of jurisdictions? You think that's trivial? It's not.

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

#130

Post by rstupek »

omfg wrote: post #5
ghaff wrote: 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.

We have used TaxCloud which handles paying each jurisdiction
Post reply on HN