backtop


Print 117 comment(s) - last by Ammohunt.. on Apr 29 at 3:36 PM

Cash strapped N.C. looks to milk money out of citizens in its battered local economy

When it comes to internet purchases, you're supposed to individually list them on your yearly tax return and then pay back sales taxes to the state.  Of course, few people do this.  Now the government of North Carolina and other states are battling Amazon.com and other e-tailers to get these records.

Amazon.com this week filed suit against the North Carolina state government -- specifically, the Department of Revenue (DOR) -- claiming that the state's demand for records of virtually every North Carolina resident who has purchased anything from Amazon since 2003 was not only unreasonable, but a violation of privacy.

Amazon writes in a filing for the case, "In re: Amazon.com LLC vs Kenneth R. Lay", Case No. 10-00664, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, "[T]he DOR has no business seeking to uncover the identity of Amazon's customers who purchased expressive content, which makes up the majority of the nearly 50 million products sold to North Carolina residents during the audit period."

If the case is lost, Amazon may have to turn over the records of millions of its customers in North Carolina.  Those individuals who purchased from Amazon (but did not report their purchase on their tax returns) might be audited and face civil penalties. At the very least, they would likely be expected to repay back taxes on the items they failed to report to the government.

In North Carolina, failing to pay state sales taxes is handled as a civil infraction.  Under the codes 105 236(5)c. and 105 236(5)a., citizens can face additional fines for dodging state taxes.  The penalty would likely be to pay 25 percent more tax, except on small items, which would require taxpayers to pay only an additional 10 percent fine.

The fight is the latest in the growing trend of states hungering for internet tax revenue.  Many states have passed or are debating laws that would tax digital downloads such as those offered by Amazon, Steam, Apple's iTunes store, or others.  While many in the public have complained about excessive taxation on the federal level, it is actually the states that have been pushing the most for bigger taxes of late.  The federal government has made some mild efforts to fight taxation of the internet.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 1:38:04 PM , Rating: 4
You do understand that it is, and always has been, illegal to purchase something out-of-state and then not report that purchase on your tax return, and pay the associated use tax...right?

This is not anything new. There has ALWAYS been that law on the books. The problem, practically, is twofold...

1. Before the internet, out-of-state purchases were pretty darned low. So the states didn't miss out on much use tax.

2. Essentially no one ever reports such out-of-state purchases, and/or pays the use tax as required by law.

By law, everyone who has ever bought anything on the internet and not reported it/paid use tax, is a criminal. And that's not up for debate - it's a black and white issue. If you bought something from any internet vendor, and did not pay use tax to your state, you broke the law. Period.

Naturally, virtually everyone (it seems) buys stuff on the internet. Just as naturally, no one (effectively) reports those purchases. Those purchases do supplant local purchases though, which means that it is absolutely accurate that the state you live in is losing money every time you make an online purchase.

Sales taxes generate a large amount of your state's revenue (granted that you live in a state that has a sales tax, which virtually all of us do). So don't make the mistake of deluding yourself into thinking this has to do with the states wanting to "steal money from their citizens" or anything of the sort. It is 100% accurate to say that an online purchase that is not accompanied by a payment of use tax is a theft from the state - perpetrated by you, the internet consumer.

The states are just trying to get what you have always been obligated to pay them.

The question is how to possibly do that. I sure as hell don't want them forcing Amazon (or anyone else) to hand over any records. That's a VAST invasion of privacy.

So someone else can come up with a good solution - but I hope at least everyone understands the legal situation here.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By spwrozek on 4/20/2010 1:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think the solution is pretty easy.

Pay the sales tax in the state where the purchase was made. If I am in Ohio and buy online from Utah make it as if I was in Utah and making the purchase. The state that deserves the tax will get it and no one will be breaking the law anymore.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By HotFoot on 4/20/2010 1:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
How does the state normally collect sales tax without the gathering of information on transactions? When I was consulting, there was always the chance that I'd be audited and have to have receipts for every amount. This is basically an audit on Amazon.

I'm not saying the state has any business knowing what you spend your money on. I just think they've already had that power for a long time.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Ammohunt on 4/20/2010 1:55:39 PM , Rating: 3
They would have to prove criminal intent most people don't purchase out of state for the purpose of defrauding local government. Law or not why is this such an issue now? i have been ordering goods over the internet for over a decade now. You would think they would have tried to enforce this along time ago the root of the problem is that they have mismanaged what tax revenue they currently collect and are looking at every avenue to get more taxes to fund their budget shortfalls. Never once have i heard the State Governemnts utter the words "cut Governmnet welfare programs" which is where most of our taxes is wasted. if they did that it would actually increase State income taxes by forcing all the lazy ass welfare recipients living off the government to get jobs.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 4:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
You want proof of criminal intent? OK. Here's the quesitonnare:

Q: Did you make your internet purchase with the intention of not paying use tax on it?

A: Yes - therefore, criminal intent.

You can complain about government programs all you want - and you can cite the fact that you've broken this law for over a decade (I'd kinda keep that to myself if I was you...). However, the fact that you got away with breaking this law in the past doesn't mean you should expect to be able to get away with breaking it in the future.

If I stole $5 from the corner gas station every day for a year, then on the 366th day when I got caught do you think I'd say something like "...but I've stolen $5 from you every day for a year - you should just let me keep doing it!"

Current tax collection systems are, of course, ancient by today's standards, and the government flat-out has no good way to collect on use taxes. That doesn't mean you have some kind of privelege to abuse the system though.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/10, Rating: 0
RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 5:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's absolutely staggering that you can be as stupid as you are and manage to continue to exist.

Marxist? Socialist? I want big government? Dude, you are so far off base it's not even funny.

All I've been doing is explaining the law, and giving a 100% perfect analogy. Not paying taxes is the same thing as theft from the government. Unless you're one of those whackos who think there's some loophole in the consitution that says you don't have to pay taxes...which there isn't.

It's amazing that you think the fact that a law isn't enforced is the same as granting you the privelege to break it. Even more so that if a law exists but you don't know about it...apparently you think that means you get to break that law?

So if I didn't know it was illegal to douse cats in lighter fluid and set them on fire, it should be OK for me to do that?

As for myself, I'd like to cut WAY back on the government. On this topic, starting with the IRS. Fire essentially all of them and institute a flat tax. Let's start there. Think how much money we'd save.

How's that for a socialist agenda? Moron. Go back to admiring your greasy hair in your hand-mirror.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/2010 6:43:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
All I've been doing is explaining the law, and giving a 100% perfect analogy. Not paying taxes is the same thing as theft from the government.


Right. Which is why it's called "Tax evasion" and not "theft". But don't let pesky details get in the way of your stupid rant.

quote:
It's amazing that you think the fact that a law isn't enforced is the same as granting you the privelege to break it. Even more so that if a law exists but you don't know about it...apparently you think that means you get to break that law?


Let me give you a list of laws still on the books in North Carolina.

It’s against the law to sing off key.

Elephants may not be used to plow cotton fields.

While having sex, you must stay in the missionary position and have the shades pulled.

If a man and a woman who aren’t married go to a hotel/motel and register themselves as married then, according to state law, they are legally married.

Oral sex is considered a crime against nature.

A three dollar tax must be paid on all white goods sold.

Bingo games may not last over 5 hours unless it is held at a fair.

Persons in possession of illegal substances must pay taxes on them.

The mere possession of a lottery ticket is illegal in North Carolina and may result in a $2,000 fine. ( by the way, the state HAS a lottery !!! )


Now you were saying Moto ??? I guess your in favor of fining or arresting everyone who doesn't stay in the missionary style too !? But you like doggy? Well too bad, the law is the law punk !!

quote:
So if I didn't know it was illegal to douse cats in lighter fluid and set them on fire, it should be OK for me to do that?


That's called animal cruelty you idiot. And I think you damn well knew it was illegal, so does everyone else.

Once again you are comparing good decent people buying stuff online to thieves and animal torturers, and you can't see how off base you are with that ? 100% perfect analogies my ass.

quote:
Even more so that if a law exists but you don't know about it...apparently you think that means you get to break that law?


Maybe it could be clarified or something ? Nah, let's just go after everyone because our state is broke and they "stole" our money !!!!

We have millions of pages of laws in this country. Hell the tax code alone is what, tens of thousands of pages !?!? I guess you have read every single one, but most people don't and shouldn't have to.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 7:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
There's lots of dumb laws on the books, as you pointed out. I don't for a second agree with a single one of them - but they are laws. Because of that, if you break one, you committed a crime.

Newsflash: stupid or not, a law is a law. Not agreeing with the intent or letter of the law is not license to ignore it.

As far as I'm concerned, feel free to plow your cotton fields with elephants while singing off key. I personally don't care...but if an officer shows up and writes you a ticket, well, you did in fact break the law.

You're bending and twisting in the wind trying to come up with some way to justify not paying taxes that you owe. Keep on bending and twisting for all I care. You are wrong, and that is an unalterable fact.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/10, Rating: -1
RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 7:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
You are so entertaining.

If the case that was noted proved that use tax laws were unconstitutional, the federal government would have forced every state in the union to get rid of them. Guess what? Those laws are on the books - including ND where that case was from.

And exactly where do you get the idea that you have the privilege of ignoring laws you don't like - whether they seem obviously stupid or not? Exactly where did you receive such education? I'd certainly like to know.

It is eminently clear that if anyone is ignorant, it is you. In fact, it's much worse than that - when presented with obviously true information, you just declare it to be false anyway and continue on your merry way. You're not just ignorant - you're stupid. Willfully so.

Ultimately, you're just a slightly more grammatically-correct Pirks or reader1. More eloquent, but just as retarded.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/2010 7:37:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If the case that was noted proved that use tax laws were unconstitutional, the federal government would have forced every state in the union to get rid of them.


Umm no, no they wouldn't. It doesn't work that way in the real world.

quote:
And exactly where do you get the idea that you have the privilege of ignoring laws you don't like - whether they seem obviously stupid or not? Exactly where did you receive such education? I'd certainly like to know.


It's called critical thinking. Something you clearly don't possess, robot.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 7:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. You think that critical thinking skills will lead you to the conclusion that you don't have to abide by laws you don't agree with?

Really?

And yes, the federal government most certainly has the capability to force states to eliminate unconstitutional laws. You know, in the real world. Which I'm guessing you've never visited.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 8:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
Just in case you miss out on where I posted this link elsewhere, with a few seconds on Google I found a Supreme Court case from 1996 upholding use taxes.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=750341...

Ohs noes. Sorry to burst your little bubble.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By jjmcubed on 4/20/2010 11:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
So some laws are okay to ignore and some aren't? And what does this have to do with someones political beliefs?????


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Ammohunt on 4/29/2010 3:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
Sure take a look at illegal immigration.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By AlexWade on 4/20/2010 6:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You do understand that it is, and always has been, illegal to purchase something out-of-state and then not report that purchase on your tax return, and pay the associated use tax...right?


The problem is, such laws are illegal and violate the US Constitution. The Constitution trumps all laws, federal and state. The US government regulates interstate commerce according to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. Sales tax for items sold out-of-state and so-called "use taxes" violate this part of the Constitution. First, because Amazon.com does not have a presence in North Carolina, North Carolina law does not apply. Only federal law applies to things that happen between states. Second, because the transaction occurs between states, the home state may not charge tax on a purchase made outside that state. That is interstate commerce.

It comes down to this. State laws only apply within that state and cannot be applied between states, even for residents of that state. If I am in a state, I subject to the laws in that state but once I leave that state, those laws no longer apply to me. That makes businesses from another state exempt from paying taxes to a different state. And the commerce clause of the Constitution makes the federal government responsible for trade between states preventing tariffs between states. Purchasing an item from a business in another state is clearly a form of trading.

The Supreme Court has rules that this part of the Constitution does prevent use tax and sales tax. This was a 1992 decision, Quill Corporation v. North Dakota. According to the ruling:

quote:
As in a number of other cases involving the application of state taxing statutes to out of state sellers, our holding in Bellas Hess relied on both the Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause. Although the "two claims are closely related," Bellas Hess, 386 U. S., at 756, the clauses pose distinct limits on the taxing powers of the States. Accordingly, while a State may, consistent with the Due Process Clause, have the authority to tax a particular taxpayer, imposition of the tax may nonetheless violate the Commerce Clause.

...

Indeed, even if we were convinced that Bellas Hess was inconsistent with our Commerce Clause jurisprudence, "this very fact [might] giv[e us] pause and counse[l] withholding our hand, at least for now. Congress has the power to protect interstate commerce from intolerable or even undesirable burdens.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-0194.ZO...

Just because a state passes a law does not mean that law is legal. The Supreme Court, in fact, rules such laws illegal.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/2010 6:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
Hey MotoMoronMan, might wanna read this post by AlexWade.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 7:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, very clever - you just managed an alliteration. I'm sure your momma would be proud. If she could read.

The point is this - the use tax law is on the books. As a citizen, you are bound to abide by the laws on the books.

If you want to bring a case to court to protest that a law is unconstitutional, that is your right. So you go right on along and do that. I would, in fact, support you in such a quixotic quest. As would probably hundreds of millions of other people.

However, in the meantime, if you don't pay use taxes on your out of state purchases, you're still breaking that law. And you're still a criminal.

A law is a law up until such time as it's removed from the books. But, by all means, you just inform your state's revenue department that you're not going to pay them use tax because you believe it's unconstitutional - we'll see where that gets you. Oh, and bring plenty of lube to the big house with you - inmates love pretty boys with greasy hair.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/2010 7:30:28 PM , Rating: 1
Moto you seem to think we live in a Monarchy where we petty simpleton citizens should be at the complete mercy of the ruling class and their every whim. And we have no recourse but to pay homage, lest our lives should be forfeit.

Take some American history you goddamn communist.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 7:32:39 PM , Rating: 3
It is quite apparent that I know vastly more about American history than you do.

...but no matter. Head back to your village - I'm sure they miss their idiot.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 7:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations on not making a point.

Amazon isn't fighting the use tax. It's fighting the request for detailed customer transaction data.

The article points out that Amazon isn't required to collect state sales taxes, which is 100% correct. It is the duty of the consumer to pay the use tax.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By AlexWade on 4/20/2010 7:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, in the meantime, if you don't pay use taxes on your out of state purchases, you're still breaking that law. And you're still a criminal.


No, I am not according to the Supreme Court which states that use taxes and interstate sales tax is illegal in the above mentioned legal brief. The US Constitution says I am not breaking the law, which trumps state law.

I understand what you are saying. But the simple fact is the Supreme Court has already ruled such laws illegal in the above decision. You are under no obligation to obey a law ruled illegal.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 7:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
You run that past your state's AG and see what they have to say.

Go on...I'll wait.

The only legal thing you could do would be to pay the use taxes appropriately and keep a detailed accounting of them, and then bring a case to the state to have your use taxes refunded on the basis that the law is unconstitutional.

Not remitting use taxes in the first place breaks that law, and makes you a criminal. Paying them and asking for the state to refund them makes you a concerned citizen.

I categorically do not believe that the case you listed proved the use tax to be unconstitutional, or else ND would have removed it from the books.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 8:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=750341...


There you go. 20 seconds on Google found a 1996 Supreme Court case that upheld use taxes as not being unconstitutional, so long as the use tax is roughly in-line with intrastate sales taxes. Which is to say, a use tax of 8% when sales taxes are also 8%, or maybe 7%, is fine...but you can't make a use tax of 20%.

I would imagine you could bounce around for days finding multiple cases that appear to go on either side of this. Which is not something I care to do. However, it is clear that the case you cited is not definitive on this issue.

...and use taxes are on the books, and I'd advise you that you do not have the right to ignore them.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By AlexWade on 4/20/2010 9:17:44 PM , Rating: 3
Okay, obviously, I'm no lawyer. Having said that, I'll continue this argument.

Read the introduction of the brief please.
quote:
In this case we decide whether North Carolina's "intangibles tax" on a fraction of the value of corporate stock owned by North Carolina residents inversely proportional to the corporation's exposure to the State's income tax violates the Commerce Clause. We hold that it does.


This ruling is about taxing stocks and not about goods and services. It is not a ruling on a use tax, unlike the other ruling. Reading through tidbits of the brief, it seems to favor less confusing taxes. I didn't read it all, I just searched for "use tax" in the brief and read the surrounding paragraphs. So I may have missed it; please show me where in the brief in makes a ruling on where the use tax for interstate commerce is legal.

I did find this in the ruling:

quote:
But because North Carolina has no general sovereign interest in taxing income earned out of state, Maryland v. Louisiana teaches that the Secretary must identify some in-state activity or benefit in order to justify the compensatory levy. Indeed, we have repeatedly held that "no state tax may be sustained unless the tax . . . has a substantial nexus with the State . . . [and] is fairly related to the services provided by the State."

The Secretary's theory is that one of the services provided by the State, and supported through its general corporate income tax, is the maintenance of a capital market for corporations wishing to sell stock to North Carolina residents. Since those corporations escape North Carolina's income tax to the extent those corporations do business in other States, the Secretary says, the State may require those companies to pay for the privilege of access to the State's capital markets by a tax on the value of the shares sold. So, the Secretary concludes, the intangibles tax "rests squarely on `the settled principle that interstate commerce may be made to pay its way.' "

The argument is unconvincing, and we rejected a counterpart of it in Oregon Waste, where we held that Oregon could not charge an increased fee for disposal of waste generated out of state on the theory that in-state waste generators supported the cost of waste disposal facilities through general income taxes.


I also found this, which may be what your point is based on:

quote:
The statute exempted the use of any article that had already been subjected to a sales tax equal to the use tax or greater, so that the use tax effectively applied only to goods purchased out of state. Although the use tax was itself facially discriminatory, we held that the combined effect of the sales and use taxes was to subject intrastate and interstate commerce to equivalent burdens. "`There is no demand in. . . [the] Constitution that the State shall put its requirements in any one statute,' " we said; rather, "`[i]t may distribute them as it sees fit, if the result, taken in its totality, is within the State's constitutional power.' "


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 10:04:03 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, the third bit there specifies that although a use tax may be "facially" discriminitory, which basically means at first glance it looks like it might be bad, it's combined effect with intrastate sales taxes means that both in-state and out-of-state transactions are burdened similarly. Therefore, not unconstitutional.

The case made many determinations - one of which was on the appropriateness of a use tax.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 10:17:39 PM , Rating: 1
Another interesting bit from 2007 that illustrates the "similarity" clause:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22564.html

The USVI have no sales tax, but they were charging a 4% use tax on all products brought in from elsewhere. THAT doesn't fly...you're being discriminatory against the out-of-state (er, territory) purchases. It also cites a precedent from way back in 1937 when the use tax was upheld, stipulating also what I have heard referred to as "reciprocity."

I have seen this in action many times myself - for example, when I purchased a motorcycle in IL and brought it home to MN - when I went to register it, I had to pay the difference in tax between IL and MN to MN.

I can find no actual legal proceedings that declare use taxes to be unconstitutional - only many such documents, article, reports, etc. that discuss use taxes without ever suggesting that they are unconstitutional.

Even around the Amazon thing, no one is even suggesting that there's anything amiss about use taxes. No one (well, other than you and reclaimer). The kerfuffle is about the state demanding detailed consumer transaction information. Nobody is suggesting that use taxes aren't owed.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By tmouse on 4/21/2010 8:52:13 AM , Rating: 2
I do not see why others are having difficulty with your positions. There has NEVER been a high court decision declaring use taxes unconstitutional. The points that have been made are whether the tax is being used to unfairly benefit intrastate sales over interstate sales in effect usurping the federal governments powers to regulate these sales. In essence requiring a seller to collect use taxes is making them pay the tax to another state where they have no presence and no recourse to effect the laws. The buyers DO have recourse and representation and are responsible for the tax. The USIV case created an environment that discriminated against outside commerce. In the other cases for the buyer it makes no difference if they pay a sales tax within the state or a use tax or some partial use tax if the sellers state has already collected some of the taxes for the buyers state because of a reciprocal tax agreement. There is no discrimination between interstate or intrastate commerce. As long as the use tax meets the requirements of the states constitution and does not actively breech any protected rights reserved by the federal constitution (like a tax on race)it's perfectly legal. As a matter of fact it could be a constitutional breech if the federal government made restrictions on any single state's laws that are not applied equally across all states. So they cannot strike down one states use tax (provided it does not effect rights I mentioned above) and ignore the others.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/21/2010 11:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
Yes.

It's quite telling that the only 2 people in the world, as far as I can tell, who are asserting that use taxes are unconstitutional are Alex and reclaimer.

...at least Alex does it without the douchebaggery that always comes with reclaimer.

If there was the slightest validity to the concept that use taxes were unconsitutional, that point would be getting made in EVERY article about the Amazon thing going on right now.

...the concept is mentioned in none of them.

So, we can either believe 2 guys on an internet forum, or we can believe every news source in the world. Hmmm...


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By tmouse on 4/21/2010 8:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
You are misinterpreting the decision. It does NOT say the use tax is unconstitutional. It says one state cannot force a SELLER in another state who has no presence in the receivers state to COLLECT the tax. It does not in fact address the buyers tax obligations at all. Quill corp.'s position was that they cannot legally collect sales tax for a state from another state and are not required to COLLECT a use tax, that would in fact be allowing one state to enforce its laws on a citizen under a separate jurisdiction and the court agreed with that interpretation (for now; they did say congress could change this). Now there are multiple decisions upholding the rights of states to collect taxes within their own jurisdictions. Use taxes are perfectly legal (I do not like them), they can only be imposed on items used within the state so for example if I buy a car in Delaware which has no state sales tax and keep it there I have no obligation to pay New York's use tax, BUT if I bring it to New York then I have to. Since a seller cannot determine where an item is going to be used it cannot enforce collection of a use tax. In the case of the Quill corp. its customers should be paying the use tax but Quill does not have to collect it. Now on topic it is not clear if Amazon could be compelled to supply purchase information to other states so they could enforce the laws on their citizens. My guess is it will be upheld at some point or congress will amend the interstate commerce laws to authorize it (not detailed information but taxable totals). Sales taxes are the only major alternative to property taxes to fund things like schools. Currently property values are in the dumpster and a second wave of devaluation is right around the corner. Sale taxes are also down , due in no small part to internet sales. Congress has held off allowing internet sale taxes to not cripple what was then a emerging industry. That time has passed (whether we like it or not). Its either increase property taxes (which is becoming near impossible in some areas), cut back in education, and other basic services or generate more sales tax revenue. Not sure how its going to be done, its either require sellers to supply individual's sale totals to the states so they can use their use tax authority, or some form of federal tax with the sellers reporting state totals so they get some share from the federal government. I do not like the idea of any of this but you cannot get something for nothing and nothing is certain except death and taxes.


RE: Just A Matter Of Time
By Motoman on 4/20/2010 7:26:33 PM , Rating: 1
Let's test that theory.

quote:
http://www.nd.gov/tax/salesanduse/


Huh. Well what do you know, the state of North Dakota seems to have the same use tax on the books as every other state I've ever seen.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the case you mentioned did not, in fact, invalidate the ND law. Hence, it's still on the books.

If the case you noted did, in fact, prove that use taxes were unconstitutional, the federal government would have forced every state in the union to purge such laws from their books. Kinda doesn't look that way though.


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki