States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by Retric » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

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.

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

#32

Post by himom » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 2:52 PM UTC

First, random trade wars, raising prices for all those clueless, provincial consumers whom don’t realize what made Walmart prices cheap. Next, cuts to MedicAid for tax breaks for the very rich that are literally blood money by killing people, throwing them off health insurance and sentencing them to bankruptcy. Then their genius band of self-destructive nincompoops hurls some more arbitrary taxes onto the people whom can least afford it, i.e., anyone not rich. Is this the same, worn political cycle of “sabotage the country while blaming the other side for doing” it gambit as usual? smh

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

#33

Post by tpurves » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 2:53 PM UTC

TheCoreh wrote: post #26

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.

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.

In fact they do already.

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

#34

Post by curun1r » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 2:53 PM UTC

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. Brick-and-mortar stores deal with this by just supporting taxation for a one specific location. If internet stores are required to support all locations, it will be a huge disadvantage.

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

#35

Post by chasil » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 2:53 PM UTC

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.

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

#36

Post by mgkimsal » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 2:53 PM UTC

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.

have been using taxjar.com with... ok results so far - they seem to only provide a sandbox/playground for 'pro' accounts ("call for pricing" - ugh).

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

#37

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

anoncoward111 wrote: post #21

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.

If there's one thing that career DC-ites can agree on, it's that citizens and (most) corporations need to pay their pound of flesh to the government.

[deleted]

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

#38

Post by zdw » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

I tend to view the avoidance of paying local taxes as one of the internet's original legislation workarounds (1). The entire wholesale (you buy for resale, pay taxes when that happens) vs retail (you sell to the end user) division was abused to allow the historical "nobody pays taxes on the internet, so buy there and avoid them" logic many people used.

It would have been interesting to see how differently retail sales would have grown, especially Amazon, if they were required to wrangle with local sales tax in all the places they sold into.

Additionally, most locations have a Use Tax that's identical to local sales tax, so it's transferring the legal burden onto the buyer. Almost nobody does this.

1: It's not a new or internet-specific tactic either - many car dealerships advertise "No City Sales Tax!" and are barely on the other side of the city limits.

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

#39

Post by pwned1 » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 2:54 PM UTC

TheCoreh wrote: post #26

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.

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.

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

#40

Post by jeffwilcox » Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 2:55 PM UTC

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.

Congrats to Avalara on their recent IPO, pretty good timing... this is a Seattle-area firm that does local/state/etc. tax calculations. In the end, it's a huge tax on infrastructure.