4 ms·

Amazon (or more accurately, the purchaser) should be paying all sales taxes in the state where the purchaser lives, period. Seems cut and dried to me. If the

by jbooth 15y ago

Amazon (or more accurately, the purchaser) should be paying all sales taxes in the state where the purchaser lives, period. Seems cut and dried to me. If the corner store has to run sales tax, Amazon should too. I don't see why a "[adjective] business decision in the face of [adjective] and [adjective] legislation" is in any way different from "skirt paying sales tax".

modoc 15y ago
Because as you say, it's actually the purchaser who needs to pay the sales tax, legally. Not Amazon.
jerf 15y ago
You say it's "cut and dried" at the same time that you are clearly reaching beyond what the laws say. It is not cut and dried as to what one state may make a resident of a completely different state do. Amazon probably is correct, and forcing Amazon to collect sales tax for your state probably is an overreach. It should be pointed out, since so many people forget this in this discussion, that as a resident of a state you are frequently required to pay the sales tax to the state directly in the form of a "use tax". This isn't about consumers owing sales tax, technically the states have already made that happen. It isn't about Amazon "not paying" this tax, because it is the consumer's responsibility at that point. It is about one state forcing an entity not in its jurisdiction to do something for the convenience (and little more) of that state. Amazon's got a pretty strong case here; any principle that makes this compulsion legal is likely to have numerous and manifold "unanticipated results" beyond merely getting Amazon to collect tax.
- jbooth 15y ago
  Uh, who brought in residents of different states? California residents should be paying the California sales tax on things they buy, and the state has a right to make that happen. Nobody's talking about forcing Colorado residents to do anything. I agree that they should find a way to make it a reasonable burden for Amazon to collect that information, but if local retailers have to collect and Amazon doesn't, that seems unfair and noncompetitive.
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    So if an amazon customer living in California buys an item that is fulfilled from Arizona, why should a California sales tax be involved? Why are we suddenly redefining the meaning of local sales tax? Are we now to the point where every state with a local sales tax will also impose tariffs on out-of-state goods? That seems to be the argument here.
    - jbooth 15y ago
      Because it was purchased by a Californian from California? I don't get how Arizona's involved at all, Best Buy prob has distribution centers there too, it's not a part of Best Buy's point of sale tax calculations. Again, it's not a tarriff on out-of-state goods, it's assessing the same tax on out-of-state as you do on in-state goods. A non-reverse-tarriff, if you will. Level playing field is all I'm arguing for here, don't see how that message keeps getting lost.
      - calloc 15y ago
        Because you are asking a business to file taxes in all 50 states it does business with instead of the consumer that is purchasing the goods who should be declaring them and paying tax on them directly to the state.
  - Goronmon 15y ago
    >Uh, who brought in residents of different states? That's the whole point of this issue. It involves parties in different states. You're argument is that if someone from state A does business in state B, then it is the responsbility of the business in state B to collect the sales tax required by state A. How can you not understand why this is a terrible argument? It means that every business would have to know and calculate the sales tax for all 49 other states and that every purchase would require proof of residence to verify which sales tax needed to be charged. Then the business would have to deal with filing taxes in 50 separate states. Ugh...I can't even imagine how this makes any sense to anyone.
  - cek 15y ago
anamax 15y ago
> Amazon (or more accurately, the purchaser) should be paying all sales taxes in the state where the purchaser lives, period. Seems cut and dried to me. If the corner store has to run sales tax, Amazon should too. Actually, the "corner store" doesn't have to collect sales tax. The "corner store" collects sales tax for the jurisdiction it is in. (Car dealers are an exception because of licensing.) CA says that its residents owe sales tax on anything that they use within the state. For example, if a CA resident walks into a store in Nevada, buys something, and takes said something back to CA, CA thinks that it is owed sales tax. I've never seen a Nevada store collect CA sales tax for sales to CA residents. I've never even seen someone suggest that said store has an obligation to collect CA sales tax. Why is Amazon different? And yes, most Nevada stores will ship.
- jbooth 15y ago
  Amazon's different because they're bigger than a rounding error, basically. The principle is "same amount of taxes for everyone". I don't live in California but if I did, I wouldn't be huge on the idea of tax-disadvantaging local businesses against out of state businesses.
  - phirephly 15y ago
    Then pursue the customers and force them to actually report their rightful use-tax when they file their taxes at the end of the year. Amazon isn't not collecting CA sales tax because they think it shouldn't be paid. They're not collecting the sales tax because they have no legal requirement to.
  - calloc 15y ago
    Except that they are not... a book on Amazon may cost $10 and a book at your local Borders may cost $10. At your local borders sales tax gets collected, and the book ends up costing $13. When you purchase it on Amazon you pay $10, and are then supposed to declare that you bought the book and pay a Use Tax. That Use Tax for a $10 is $3. You as a consumer are now obligated to pay the state $3. Having a business collect sales tax for a state it has no presence in is not in accordance with federal law, and California law does not apply due to interstate commerce laws. Thus there is no way to force Amazon to collect tax for sales to California residents. -- Go tell the consumers to pay taxes for all of the stuff they have bought, it is the consumers who should be paying the taxes and aren't.

by jbooth 15y ago

modoc 15y ago

Because as you say, it's actually the purchaser who needs to pay the sales tax, legally. Not Amazon.

jerf 15y ago

You say it's "cut and dried" at the same time that you are clearly reaching beyond what the laws say. It is not cut and dried as to what one state may make a resident of a completely different state do. Amazon probably is correct, and forcing Amazon to collect sales tax for your state probably is an overreach. It should be pointed out, since so many people forget this in this discussion, that as a resident of a state you are frequently required to pay the sales tax to the state directly in the form of a "use tax". This isn't about consumers owing sales tax, technically the states have already made that happen. It isn't about Amazon "not paying" this tax, because it is the consumer's responsibility at that point. It is about one state forcing an entity not in its jurisdiction to do something for the convenience (and little more) of that state. Amazon's got a pretty strong case here; any principle that makes this compulsion legal is likely to have numerous and manifold "unanticipated results" beyond merely getting Amazon to collect tax.

jbooth 15y ago
Uh, who brought in residents of different states? California residents should be paying the California sales tax on things they buy, and the state has a right to make that happen. Nobody's talking about forcing Colorado residents to do anything. I agree that they should find a way to make it a reasonable burden for Amazon to collect that information, but if local retailers have to collect and Amazon doesn't, that seems unfair and noncompetitive.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  So if an amazon customer living in California buys an item that is fulfilled from Arizona, why should a California sales tax be involved? Why are we suddenly redefining the meaning of local sales tax? Are we now to the point where every state with a local sales tax will also impose tariffs on out-of-state goods? That seems to be the argument here.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    Because it was purchased by a Californian from California? I don't get how Arizona's involved at all, Best Buy prob has distribution centers there too, it's not a part of Best Buy's point of sale tax calculations. Again, it's not a tarriff on out-of-state goods, it's assessing the same tax on out-of-state as you do on in-state goods. A non-reverse-tarriff, if you will. Level playing field is all I'm arguing for here, don't see how that message keeps getting lost.
    - calloc 15y ago
      Because you are asking a business to file taxes in all 50 states it does business with instead of the consumer that is purchasing the goods who should be declaring them and paying tax on them directly to the state.
- Goronmon 15y ago
  >Uh, who brought in residents of different states? That's the whole point of this issue. It involves parties in different states. You're argument is that if someone from state A does business in state B, then it is the responsbility of the business in state B to collect the sales tax required by state A. How can you not understand why this is a terrible argument? It means that every business would have to know and calculate the sales tax for all 49 other states and that every purchase would require proof of residence to verify which sales tax needed to be charged. Then the business would have to deal with filing taxes in 50 separate states. Ugh...I can't even imagine how this makes any sense to anyone.
- cek 15y ago

anamax 15y ago

> Amazon (or more accurately, the purchaser) should be paying all sales taxes in the state where the purchaser lives, period. Seems cut and dried to me. If the corner store has to run sales tax, Amazon should too. Actually, the "corner store" doesn't have to collect sales tax. The "corner store" collects sales tax for the jurisdiction it is in. (Car dealers are an exception because of licensing.) CA says that its residents owe sales tax on anything that they use within the state. For example, if a CA resident walks into a store in Nevada, buys something, and takes said something back to CA, CA thinks that it is owed sales tax. I've never seen a Nevada store collect CA sales tax for sales to CA residents. I've never even seen someone suggest that said store has an obligation to collect CA sales tax. Why is Amazon different? And yes, most Nevada stores will ship.

jbooth 15y ago
Amazon's different because they're bigger than a rounding error, basically. The principle is "same amount of taxes for everyone". I don't live in California but if I did, I wouldn't be huge on the idea of tax-disadvantaging local businesses against out of state businesses.
- phirephly 15y ago
  Then pursue the customers and force them to actually report their rightful use-tax when they file their taxes at the end of the year. Amazon isn't not collecting CA sales tax because they think it shouldn't be paid. They're not collecting the sales tax because they have no legal requirement to.
- calloc 15y ago
  Except that they are not... a book on Amazon may cost $10 and a book at your local Borders may cost $10. At your local borders sales tax gets collected, and the book ends up costing $13. When you purchase it on Amazon you pay $10, and are then supposed to declare that you bought the book and pay a Use Tax. That Use Tax for a $10 is $3. You as a consumer are now obligated to pay the state $3. Having a business collect sales tax for a state it has no presence in is not in accordance with federal law, and California law does not apply due to interstate commerce laws. Thus there is no way to force Amazon to collect tax for sales to California residents. -- Go tell the consumers to pay taxes for all of the stuff they have bought, it is the consumers who should be paying the taxes and aren't.