28 ms·
I'm not disagreeing with you, but the logic here is that the company isn't paying the sales tax, the individual making the purchase is.The company is "simply" t
by mreome 8y ago
I'm not disagreeing with you, but the logic here is that the company isn't paying the sales tax, the individual making the purchase is.The company is "simply" transferring that tax to the appropriate state government. Except it's not simple and you can be fined or go to jail if your business does it wrong.
- jecxjo 8y agoCurrently the vendor is asked to take sales tax on behalf of the purchaser. If they don't, then the purchaser must pay a use tax. Only that isn't happening. So SD has now put the sole burden on the vendor which means that they are liable if the tax isn't paid. This also means that if your business currently doesn't file sales tax you will have to add that work load to your current business which you didn't have to before. That is an added cost that didn't "have to" exist prior to this ruling. Let's call a spade a spade here, this is a tax on the vendor. This all sounds like my one man SaaS site now needs to have employees and keep extra book work for states I will never physically be in and who doesn't feel they need to hirden their citizens with actually paying their taxes. That should count for something.