4 ms·

This is my point. It happens with brick and mortar stores, too. The MO/KS border has a large population buildup. It's totally normal to shop in the state that

by R0b0t1 5y ago

This is my point. It happens with brick and mortar stores, too. The MO/KS border has a large population buildup. It's totally normal to shop in the state that has the best tax rate for your goods. If you apply the ecommerce logic to this, you need to have people show ID at stores so the store can apply the right tax rate. It seems to me the seller's state has just as much claim to sales tax as the buyer's. The seller is potentially making use of business development credits etc, etc, originating in their state. This is an issue that falls under the federal government.

gamblor956 5y ago
No, you guys are both misunderstanding how the sales sourcing works: it's the address where the sale is deemed to have taken place. For brick-and-mortar sales, that is the physical location of the store: you will be taxed the appropriate rate for the address of the store. Note that this includes includes online orders picked up from a store location, and in-person orders even if the goods are not actually physically located at the store, such as if they are shipped from a separate warehouse to the store. However, delivery orders might be subject to different rules, depending on the state; some states use the address provided by the customer as the location of the sale, so that in-person sales delivered to out-of-state addresses might not be subject to sales tax. For online sales, the sale is (now) treated to have occurred at the address provided by the buyer for delivery, because that is the most expedient way to determine address. The EU has made waves about using IP addresses or geolocation to determine the actual location of the buyer at the time the order is submitted, but AFAIK both proposals are DOA due to infeasibility. It seems to me the seller's state has just as much claim to sales tax as the buyer's. The seller is potentially making use of business development credits etc, etc, originating in their state. No, the seller's state doesn't have a claim to the sales tax, because sales tax is a tax on the customer not the seller. It is simply collected by the seller because the compliance is easier to enforce. (Caveat: in Hawaii, the GET is a tax on the seller that can be passed on to the customer.)
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  I understand the current rulings. I am saying they are erroneous. We (who I replied to and myself) understand what is going on. It is not consistent.
  - gamblor956 5y ago
    You are fundamentally misunderstanding that a sales tax is a tax on the customer not on the seller. This is because sales taxes are fundamentally use taxes with the compliance burden shifted from the customer to the seller. You can argue against reality all you want, but it won't change decades of history, nor will it change how the world actually works.

by R0b0t1 5y ago

gamblor956 5y ago

No, you guys are both misunderstanding how the sales sourcing works: it's the address where the sale is deemed to have taken place. For brick-and-mortar sales, that is the physical location of the store: you will be taxed the appropriate rate for the address of the store. Note that this includes includes online orders picked up from a store location, and in-person orders even if the goods are not actually physically located at the store, such as if they are shipped from a separate warehouse to the store. However, delivery orders might be subject to different rules, depending on the state; some states use the address provided by the customer as the location of the sale, so that in-person sales delivered to out-of-state addresses might not be subject to sales tax. For online sales, the sale is (now) treated to have occurred at the address provided by the buyer for delivery, because that is the most expedient way to determine address. The EU has made waves about using IP addresses or geolocation to determine the actual location of the buyer at the time the order is submitted, but AFAIK both proposals are DOA due to infeasibility. It seems to me the seller's state has just as much claim to sales tax as the buyer's. The seller is potentially making use of business development credits etc, etc, originating in their state. No, the seller's state doesn't have a claim to the sales tax, because sales tax is a tax on the customer not the seller. It is simply collected by the seller because the compliance is easier to enforce. (Caveat: in Hawaii, the GET is a tax on the seller that can be passed on to the customer.)

R0b0t1 5y ago
I understand the current rulings. I am saying they are erroneous. We (who I replied to and myself) understand what is going on. It is not consistent.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  You are fundamentally misunderstanding that a sales tax is a tax on the customer not on the seller. This is because sales taxes are fundamentally use taxes with the compliance burden shifted from the customer to the seller. You can argue against reality all you want, but it won't change decades of history, nor will it change how the world actually works.