6 ms·

California is not a member of the SST because it does not currently tax a number of things that are subject to tax under the SST regime. For example, digital go

California is not a member of the SST because it does not currently tax a number of things that are subject to tax under the SST regime. For example, digital goods are taxable in SST states but not in California. Similarly, there are a number of other product categories where CA's taxability classifications do not match the SST's classifications. Generally, the total tax they could collect from remote (non-CA) sellers below the $500k nexus threshold is not worth the effort it would take to change things so that CA could join the SST, and moreover, it would require significant changes by CA sellers. Generally, those same considerations also apply in NY: the cost burden on local sellers to make the change would dwarf any minuscule tax increase from joining the SST.

spockz 5y ago
Interesting. People bemoan that the market in Europe is too splintered and that the whole of the us can be seen as one market. But all these state differences seem to at least indicate that it isn’t that simple.
- germanier 5y ago
  Interestingly, VAT law is mostly harmonized in the EU and remittance will get even easier starting July where you can declare and pay VAT on cross-border sales to just one entity ("One-Stop-Shop").
tzs 5y ago
The US could really use some national action on sales taxes. I'd like to see Congress make it so a state can only require remote sellers with no physical presence in the state to collect tax for the state if: 1. Tax rates on remote sales are uniform within a zip code. No more having to deal with "123 Fake Street, Hooterville, 65026" having a different tax rate than "124 Fake Street, Hooterville, 65026". (Worse, I recall finding an example where a tax boundary apparently ran through an office building, so different offices on the same floor had different tax rates!). 2. They adopt a standard for tax classification that will be specified by the Federal government. They don't have to change the classifications used for taxing sellers with a presences in the state, but for remote sellers they have to use the Federal classifications. 3. Rates for remote sales can only change once per quarter, and the data for the quarter must be published one month before the start of the quarter. It must be published on the web, at a URL that requires no registration or fees, in a format specified by the Federal government. The Federal government would maintain a web page that contains links to the state data pages. 4. Sellers can report taxes using a uniform format defined by the Federal government. The format supports reports that cover the taxes for more than one state. The seller can file such a multi-state report with any state that requires remote sellers to collect tax that they owe tax to, and that state will forward the report to the other states it contains data for. The seller can also pay all the tax to that state, and it will transfer the appropriate amounts to the other states. If Congress did this it would make dealing with remote sales tax so much easier.
- xxpor 5y ago
  Does Congress have that power? I suppose you could argue they're interstate commerce regulations, but idk if that'd fly. Edit: Obvious SD v Wayfair is relevant here, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf It's too complex to even take a stab at guessing what they'd say based on that though. Also, I'd forgotten what a wild lineup the votes were. GINSBURG, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. Edit again: Seems Roberts agrees Congress can do something: Roberts noted that Congress has been considering whether to alter the physical-presence rule, and “nothing in today’s decision precludes Congress from continuing to seek a legislative solution. But by suddenly changing the ground rules, the Court may have waylaid Congress’s consideration of the issue.” The majority “proceeds with an inexplicable sense of urgency,” the chief justice said, and it “breezily disregards the costs that its decision will impose on retailers.” There are complex distinctions made in more than 10,000 taxing jurisdictions, he said. “New Jersey knitters pay sales tax on yarn purchased for art projects, but not on yarn earmarked for sweaters,” Roberts said, while Texas imposes a sales tax on plain deodorant but not on deodorant with antiperspirant, and Illinois treats Twix and Snickers bars differently for sales-tax purposes. https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-expands-states-ability-to-require-internet-retailers-to-collect-sales-tax/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-ex...
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    Probably not to enforce standards, but they certainly have the power to create standards and incentivize their use. Much in the same way they can't control speed limits on national highways or the drinking age in various states, yet these laws are largely uniform across the country.
    - xxpor 5y ago
      Those rules have to be on a funding source that's plausibly related and it has to be non-coercive. I'm struggling to think of a relevant funding source here.

spockz 5y ago

Interesting. People bemoan that the market in Europe is too splintered and that the whole of the us can be seen as one market. But all these state differences seem to at least indicate that it isn’t that simple.

germanier 5y ago
Interestingly, VAT law is mostly harmonized in the EU and remittance will get even easier starting July where you can declare and pay VAT on cross-border sales to just one entity ("One-Stop-Shop").

tzs 5y ago

The US could really use some national action on sales taxes. I'd like to see Congress make it so a state can only require remote sellers with no physical presence in the state to collect tax for the state if: 1. Tax rates on remote sales are uniform within a zip code. No more having to deal with "123 Fake Street, Hooterville, 65026" having a different tax rate than "124 Fake Street, Hooterville, 65026". (Worse, I recall finding an example where a tax boundary apparently ran through an office building, so different offices on the same floor had different tax rates!). 2. They adopt a standard for tax classification that will be specified by the Federal government. They don't have to change the classifications used for taxing sellers with a presences in the state, but for remote sellers they have to use the Federal classifications. 3. Rates for remote sales can only change once per quarter, and the data for the quarter must be published one month before the start of the quarter. It must be published on the web, at a URL that requires no registration or fees, in a format specified by the Federal government. The Federal government would maintain a web page that contains links to the state data pages. 4. Sellers can report taxes using a uniform format defined by the Federal government. The format supports reports that cover the taxes for more than one state. The seller can file such a multi-state report with any state that requires remote sellers to collect tax that they owe tax to, and that state will forward the report to the other states it contains data for. The seller can also pay all the tax to that state, and it will transfer the appropriate amounts to the other states. If Congress did this it would make dealing with remote sales tax so much easier.

xxpor 5y ago
Does Congress have that power? I suppose you could argue they're interstate commerce regulations, but idk if that'd fly. Edit: Obvious SD v Wayfair is relevant here, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf It's too complex to even take a stab at guessing what they'd say based on that though. Also, I'd forgotten what a wild lineup the votes were. GINSBURG, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. Edit again: Seems Roberts agrees Congress can do something: Roberts noted that Congress has been considering whether to alter the physical-presence rule, and “nothing in today’s decision precludes Congress from continuing to seek a legislative solution. But by suddenly changing the ground rules, the Court may have waylaid Congress’s consideration of the issue.” The majority “proceeds with an inexplicable sense of urgency,” the chief justice said, and it “breezily disregards the costs that its decision will impose on retailers.” There are complex distinctions made in more than 10,000 taxing jurisdictions, he said. “New Jersey knitters pay sales tax on yarn purchased for art projects, but not on yarn earmarked for sweaters,” Roberts said, while Texas imposes a sales tax on plain deodorant but not on deodorant with antiperspirant, and Illinois treats Twix and Snickers bars differently for sales-tax purposes. https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-expands-states-ability-to-require-internet-retailers-to-collect-sales-tax/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-ex...
- mywittyname 5y ago
  Probably not to enforce standards, but they certainly have the power to create standards and incentivize their use. Much in the same way they can't control speed limits on national highways or the drinking age in various states, yet these laws are largely uniform across the country.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    Those rules have to be on a funding source that's plausibly related and it has to be non-coercive. I'm struggling to think of a relevant funding source here.