4 ms·

> 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. differe

by sbov 8y ago

> 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 border, which technically is a city in LA County, but technically is just a neighborhood within the city of Thousand Oaks in Ventura County. When I last looked at this a few years ago for a project, for certain problem addresses, no one got them right. Not Macy's, not Amazon, etc. The only real way to properly calculate sales tax is to geolocate their location.

jedberg 8y ago
As a fellow former resident of the county-spanning Westlake area, I can tell you that even the people that live there don't know where they live. I was debating with a friend of mine just the other day, and her and her mom couldn't even agree what city they lived in. Then I looked it up on the map, and different maps gave different answers. And they keep building new houses, so who the hell knows which tax jurisdiction each individual house is in? The people that live in them can't even keep track!
rconti 8y ago
Definitely not unique to CA, either. But I agree most online retailers don't write their own payment processing code anyway.
gamblor956 8y ago
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 can't include local sales taxes, because an out-of-state vendor can't be expected to know about such taxes unless they do sufficient business with that locality. Note that both of the current federal sales tax laws before Congress also disallow local sales taxes in favor of state-level sales taxes. Long story short: there will be up to 50 sales taxes that online stores must deal with.
- nkurz 8y ago
  In order for the sales tax to survive South Dakota v. Wayfair, it must be minimally restrictive on an out-of-state vendor. While the outcome you describe might be a good one, I think you are greatly overstating when you read into this decision a new standard of "minimally restrictive". Major vendors already charge local sales taxes to the best of their abilities, and almost certainly will continue to do so. This decision merely says that there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about a particular South Dakota law requiring a retailer without a physical presence to collect sales tax on behalf of the state. This does mean that a law in another state with similarly restricted characteristics is likely to survive review as well. But it doesn't (yet) create any line that says all of same characteristics must be met. If New York City were to attempt to enforce the same law, it might find enforcement difficult, but it likely would not have constitutional impediments. If another state were to choose some wider scope, it too might well be judged constitutional. At the least, we wouldn't know until more cases have been decided: it's not yet clear how much 'stare decisis' has been thrown out here. Instead, this case sets a standard for what is clearly constitutionally allowed, saying that there no longer a requirement of physical presence, but doesn't say much about what else would be required. It gives Congress an opening to pass a clearer national law about what the standards need to be, but doesn't create such a standard itself.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Still reading the case in detail, but these quotes address your comments head on and indicate that SCOTUS likely would not support a state scheme allowing for a multitude of local sales taxes (a la California). EDIT: While it is true that the dissenting opinions wanted Congress to solve this problem for them, the physical nexus rule was (and generally always has been) a construct of the Courts, and should have been struck down by the courts. Having a legislative counterpart is no excuse for letting bad decisions live. EDIT2: Also, SCOTUS did not strike down the nexus requirement, only the specific physical nexus requirement of Quill. The dicta quoted below strongly suggests that complex sales tax system would require stronger nexus than the South Dakota regime. "Complex state tax systems could have the effect of discriminating against interstate commerce." "That said, South Dakota’s tax system includes several features that appear designed to prevent discrimination against or undue burdens upon interstate commerce. First, the Act applies a safe harbor to those who transact only limited business in South Dakota. Second, the Act ensures that no obligation to remit the sales tax may be applied retroactively. S. B. 106, §5. Third, South Dakota is one of more than 20 States that have adopted the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. This system standardizes taxes to reduce administrative and compliance costs: It requires a single, state level tax administration, uniform definitions of products and services, simplified tax rate structures, and other uniform rules."

by sbov 8y ago

jedberg 8y ago

As a fellow former resident of the county-spanning Westlake area, I can tell you that even the people that live there don't know where they live. I was debating with a friend of mine just the other day, and her and her mom couldn't even agree what city they lived in. Then I looked it up on the map, and different maps gave different answers. And they keep building new houses, so who the hell knows which tax jurisdiction each individual house is in? The people that live in them can't even keep track!

rconti 8y ago

Definitely not unique to CA, either. But I agree most online retailers don't write their own payment processing code anyway.

gamblor956 8y ago

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 can't include local sales taxes, because an out-of-state vendor can't be expected to know about such taxes unless they do sufficient business with that locality. Note that both of the current federal sales tax laws before Congress also disallow local sales taxes in favor of state-level sales taxes. Long story short: there will be up to 50 sales taxes that online stores must deal with.

nkurz 8y ago
In order for the sales tax to survive South Dakota v. Wayfair, it must be minimally restrictive on an out-of-state vendor. While the outcome you describe might be a good one, I think you are greatly overstating when you read into this decision a new standard of "minimally restrictive". Major vendors already charge local sales taxes to the best of their abilities, and almost certainly will continue to do so. This decision merely says that there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about a particular South Dakota law requiring a retailer without a physical presence to collect sales tax on behalf of the state. This does mean that a law in another state with similarly restricted characteristics is likely to survive review as well. But it doesn't (yet) create any line that says all of same characteristics must be met. If New York City were to attempt to enforce the same law, it might find enforcement difficult, but it likely would not have constitutional impediments. If another state were to choose some wider scope, it too might well be judged constitutional. At the least, we wouldn't know until more cases have been decided: it's not yet clear how much 'stare decisis' has been thrown out here. Instead, this case sets a standard for what is clearly constitutionally allowed, saying that there no longer a requirement of physical presence, but doesn't say much about what else would be required. It gives Congress an opening to pass a clearer national law about what the standards need to be, but doesn't create such a standard itself.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Still reading the case in detail, but these quotes address your comments head on and indicate that SCOTUS likely would not support a state scheme allowing for a multitude of local sales taxes (a la California). EDIT: While it is true that the dissenting opinions wanted Congress to solve this problem for them, the physical nexus rule was (and generally always has been) a construct of the Courts, and should have been struck down by the courts. Having a legislative counterpart is no excuse for letting bad decisions live. EDIT2: Also, SCOTUS did not strike down the nexus requirement, only the specific physical nexus requirement of Quill. The dicta quoted below strongly suggests that complex sales tax system would require stronger nexus than the South Dakota regime. "Complex state tax systems could have the effect of discriminating against interstate commerce." "That said, South Dakota’s tax system includes several features that appear designed to prevent discrimination against or undue burdens upon interstate commerce. First, the Act applies a safe harbor to those who transact only limited business in South Dakota. Second, the Act ensures that no obligation to remit the sales tax may be applied retroactively. S. B. 106, §5. Third, South Dakota is one of more than 20 States that have adopted the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. This system standardizes taxes to reduce administrative and compliance costs: It requires a single, state level tax administration, uniform definitions of products and services, simplified tax rate structures, and other uniform rules."