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

261–270 of 613 posts

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

#261

Post by jedberg »

datamingle wrote: post #226
jedberg wrote: post #165

> Grover Norquist, president of the anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform, said in a statement, "Today the Supreme Court said yes -- you can be taxed by politicians you do not elect and who act knowing you are powerless to object." That doesn't follow. The people being taxed are the people living in that state, and their representatives are enacting that tax. As usually Norquist is making up BS to scare people.

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.

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

#262

Post by djsumdog »

gamblor956 wrote: post #190
sbov wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Keep in mind in California, sales tax changes per county. More than that. Sales tax in California can change arbitrarily, not just by county. E.g. different cities in the same county can have different sales tax. To further complicate things, shipping address may have a city on it but they might not actually "live" in that city. E.g. in SoCal there is a city of "Westlake Village", which spans the Ventura-LA county…

The ruling is technically limited to states which do not impose burdensome restrictions on interstate commerce. The ruling specifically notes that South Dakota streamlined its sales tax process. It doesn't matter what Westlake Village wants to charge in sales tax to Amazon. In order for the sales tax to survive South Dakota v. Wayfair , it must be minimally restrictive on an out-of-state vendor. This means that it ca…

But that's only if you're company doesn't have a point of presence in that state right? If you have an office in California, then you do have to use a service/API that handles all those crazy local taxes cases (or at least attempts to).

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

#263

Post by brlewis »

Retric wrote: post #31
nlh wrote: post #14

Fascinating mix of justices on this one: > The vote was 5 to 4. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch. I can't imagine we're gonna see RBG agreeing with the Alito/Gorsuch/Thomas clan too often.

So how exactly is this a constitutional question where a new court can have a different opinion? Quill now harms states to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated earlier. That hardly seems like it changes the Constitution.

They aren't saying that the Constitution has changed since Quill, but that Quill was wrong to begin with. See pages 2-4 of the ruling, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf

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

#264

Post by [deleted] »

jethro_tell wrote: post #244
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.

The business isn't paying the tax though? If the people paying the tax don't want it, they should replace their reps or move to a state that doesn't have that tax. So we could think of it from the point of the business but that wouldn't be based in fact.

[deleted]

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

#265

Post by tomrod »

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…

Sounds like a business opportunity.

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

#266

Post by reaperducer »

jonknee wrote: post #204
reaperducer wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying sales taxes online for the one state where I have a business that does retail sales takes between 10 and 30 minutes, depending on how complex that quarter's sales were. Multiply by 50 states, and it's up to 25 hours a month of work. For those of you who have never done this, sales taxes are a lot more complicated than they seem. In the three states where I've had retail businesses, different types of products…

Or you could just outsource it to companies like TaxJar that specialize in this and pay a few bucks to have to all done automatically. After this ruling I expect more and more platforms will have this sort of thing built in. One or two more fields to fill out for your products, but otherwise completely automated.

a few bucks

Please be more specific.

Also, remember that every single one of those bucks will be passed on to the customer in higher prices.

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

#267

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#268

Post by [deleted] »

jdhn wrote: post #207
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…

>If a locality can enforce its local tax laws, what other custom crafted local laws can it enforce in return for access to customers? Should it be allowed to enforce its local environmental and labor standards as well? This is pretty much what happens with California and car manufacturers. Even today on certain aftermarket car parts (primarily exhaust systems), there are explicit notices that they are legal anywhere…

[deleted]

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

#269

Post by DoctorOetker »

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…

With fee, do you mean that you have to pay a yearly fee for simply registering as possibly collecting taxes for that jurisdiction? Not sure what most is, but ~30-50 pay-to-play fee's a year will certainly hurt the small businesses.

I think it's good to start harmonizing the sales taxes, but such a fee (if I understand you correctly) should be removed...

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

#270

Post by rbritton »

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.

Between this and similarly far-reaching laws (e.g., GDPR), it's becoming increasingly burdensome for small players to the point where secondary services like Avalara are effectively required.

Post reply on HN