4 ms·

It's not even non-taxation. It's the fact that no two states with sales taxes have the same rates (which can also vary by locality), rules about what it applies

by nknight 15y ago

It's not even non-taxation. It's the fact that no two states with sales taxes have the same rates (which can also vary by locality), rules about what it applies to, or filing mechanism. Amazon and everyone else involved in ecommerce would be a lot happier if there were a unified system/database for dealing with sales taxes in the US. Rates and rules wouldn't necessarily have to be the same, but there at least has to be one system with unified categorization of products and a unified filing mechanism which can be automatically queried, and as long as the merchants use that system in good faith, they would need to be immune to any sort of lawsuit or prosecution for not meeting the actual legal requirements of any particular state/locality.

halostatue 15y ago
The varying rates aren't a problem, for certain; Amazon deals with those just fine in various localities (Canada has approximately 10 different rates; I don't think that cities are allowed to put additional sales taxes, as that's reserved to the federal government and the provinces/territories). What's problematic for Amazon (IMO) is the wildly varying applicability rules and filing mechanisms. I think your idea of a unified sales tax database/system is spot on.
- weaksauce 15y ago
  In California there are different tax rates for every county in the state. see http://www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rates.cgi http://www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rates.cgi
  - shoota 15y ago
    They have different rates even down to the city level take a look here http://www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rates.cgi?LETTER=A&LIST=CITY http://www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rates.cgi?LETTER=A&LIST=CI...
    - hga 15y ago
      In my home town of only 50K (before the tornado, it's Joplin, MO) there are sections of the town with their own additional sales tax, the theory is to improve that particular business district or to pay for the city's contributions to it (e.g. intersection upgrades). On thing I'm noticing as I work with receipts for my insurance claim is that of the three Wal-Marts in two cities we did and now shop at (the one we used to exclusively go to was destroyed and is rebuilding) each has two different sales tax rates (don't forget that rates also depend on what is being bought, e.g. food of certain types is taxed less). And then there is the statewide state sales tax holiday for certain back to school supplied in late August.... This is serious nightmare ... but much less so for a company of Amazon.com's scale than a potentially dangerous to it upstart.
      - hga 15y ago
        I forgot to add: my current temporary location is in an unincorporated part of the county, although part of the plot of land is in a 3rd city. What sales tax rate should be assigned to me for mail orders? For fairness (if you believe in doing this at all, which I don't), it ought to be the business district where I do the most shopping (the one that at the moment has precious few functioning businesses since most were totaled if not totally destroyed). (Note that I don't agree with charging sales tax on mail order purchases; the mail order companies do not benefit from taxes except, say, though that maintain public order, and that's party captured by the delivery companies they use which do pay local taxes (except for, I assume, the USPS, but that's another issue).)
- rfrey 15y ago
  Even Canada, with 1/10 the number of jurisdictions, is attempting to unify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonized_Sales_Tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonized_Sales_Tax.
  - alexhawket 15y ago
    British Columbians recently voted and repealed the HST in their province.
gojomo 15y ago
Amazon ran Target's online store for years, and collected locality-appropriate sales tax on those orders. It's not as hard as some people make it out to be.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  Target has a physical presence in many locations, so they already have the tax data for those locations. If they just calculate the taxes based on the rate at the nearest Target location (which is what would happen if you went to the physical store and bought something), then it would be easy. If they have to calculate the tax based on the address of the recipient, the problem becomes insanely difficult.
earl 15y ago
Amazon has 33k employees [1], estimated; they can figure it out. Also, I'm positive there's at least one company selling such information -- thousands of other retailers, most much smaller and much less technically sophisticated than Amazon, still manage to make it happen. This is an idiotic excuse. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com
- thematt 15y ago
  Yes, Amazon does. But if it applies to Amazon then it will apply to all the other smaller internet retailers as well. The historical precedent was that it creates an undue burden on said retailers who have to collect such a tax. It's not an excuse, it's a Supreme Court ruling.
  - earl 15y ago
    it's an excuse. Thanks to sokoloff for digging it up, but here's at least one software suite that does just what I sugggested: http://onesource.thomsonreuters.com/solutions/indirect-tax/sales-use/ http://onesource.thomsonreuters.com/solutions/indirect-tax/s...
    - gergles 15y ago
      So your solution to the problem of there being hundreds of thousands of potential tax rates for every single item is to require everyone selling anything online to pay Thomson Reuters for a subscription to their database?
      - earl 15y ago
        Or one of their competitors, yes. Or figure it out themselves. Thousands of retailers from JC Penny to Sears to B&N, etc etc, figure it out. Also, you'll note that all online business already do this for the state in which they're located (with the exception of states that don't charge sales tax, but those are relatively few), so businesses can clearly do it. 50 states instead of one is a minor matter of scale, and is no more complex than figuring this out for one state. Which they already must. Also, if Reuters has excessive profits, someone will probably make a competitor. That said, it's basically a solved problem, except when companies want to hand wring their way out of paying taxes. BTW, don't be ridiculous about "hundreds of thousands". Unless you mean thousands. Even TR in their sales literature only mentions 13k tax authorities [1] [1] http://onesource.thomsonreuters.com/share/solutions/41686/brochures/41736/74692 http://onesource.thomsonreuters.com/share/solutions/41686/br...

by nknight 15y ago

halostatue 15y ago

The varying rates aren't a problem, for certain; Amazon deals with those just fine in various localities (Canada has approximately 10 different rates; I don't think that cities are allowed to put additional sales taxes, as that's reserved to the federal government and the provinces/territories). What's problematic for Amazon (IMO) is the wildly varying applicability rules and filing mechanisms. I think your idea of a unified sales tax database/system is spot on.

weaksauce 15y ago
In California there are different tax rates for every county in the state. see http://www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rates.cgi http://www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rates.cgi
- shoota 15y ago
  They have different rates even down to the city level take a look here http://www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rates.cgi?LETTER=A&LIST=CITY http://www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rates.cgi?LETTER=A&LIST=CI...
  - hga 15y ago
    In my home town of only 50K (before the tornado, it's Joplin, MO) there are sections of the town with their own additional sales tax, the theory is to improve that particular business district or to pay for the city's contributions to it (e.g. intersection upgrades). On thing I'm noticing as I work with receipts for my insurance claim is that of the three Wal-Marts in two cities we did and now shop at (the one we used to exclusively go to was destroyed and is rebuilding) each has two different sales tax rates (don't forget that rates also depend on what is being bought, e.g. food of certain types is taxed less). And then there is the statewide state sales tax holiday for certain back to school supplied in late August.... This is serious nightmare ... but much less so for a company of Amazon.com's scale than a potentially dangerous to it upstart.
    - hga 15y ago
      I forgot to add: my current temporary location is in an unincorporated part of the county, although part of the plot of land is in a 3rd city. What sales tax rate should be assigned to me for mail orders? For fairness (if you believe in doing this at all, which I don't), it ought to be the business district where I do the most shopping (the one that at the moment has precious few functioning businesses since most were totaled if not totally destroyed). (Note that I don't agree with charging sales tax on mail order purchases; the mail order companies do not benefit from taxes except, say, though that maintain public order, and that's party captured by the delivery companies they use which do pay local taxes (except for, I assume, the USPS, but that's another issue).)
rfrey 15y ago
Even Canada, with 1/10 the number of jurisdictions, is attempting to unify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonized_Sales_Tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonized_Sales_Tax.
- alexhawket 15y ago
  British Columbians recently voted and repealed the HST in their province.

gojomo 15y ago

Amazon ran Target's online store for years, and collected locality-appropriate sales tax on those orders. It's not as hard as some people make it out to be.

nitrogen 15y ago
Target has a physical presence in many locations, so they already have the tax data for those locations. If they just calculate the taxes based on the rate at the nearest Target location (which is what would happen if you went to the physical store and bought something), then it would be easy. If they have to calculate the tax based on the address of the recipient, the problem becomes insanely difficult.

earl 15y ago

Amazon has 33k employees [1], estimated; they can figure it out. Also, I'm positive there's at least one company selling such information -- thousands of other retailers, most much smaller and much less technically sophisticated than Amazon, still manage to make it happen. This is an idiotic excuse. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com

thematt 15y ago
Yes, Amazon does. But if it applies to Amazon then it will apply to all the other smaller internet retailers as well. The historical precedent was that it creates an undue burden on said retailers who have to collect such a tax. It's not an excuse, it's a Supreme Court ruling.
- earl 15y ago
  it's an excuse. Thanks to sokoloff for digging it up, but here's at least one software suite that does just what I sugggested: http://onesource.thomsonreuters.com/solutions/indirect-tax/sales-use/ http://onesource.thomsonreuters.com/solutions/indirect-tax/s...
  - gergles 15y ago
    So your solution to the problem of there being hundreds of thousands of potential tax rates for every single item is to require everyone selling anything online to pay Thomson Reuters for a subscription to their database?
    - earl 15y ago
      Or one of their competitors, yes. Or figure it out themselves. Thousands of retailers from JC Penny to Sears to B&N, etc etc, figure it out. Also, you'll note that all online business already do this for the state in which they're located (with the exception of states that don't charge sales tax, but those are relatively few), so businesses can clearly do it. 50 states instead of one is a minor matter of scale, and is no more complex than figuring this out for one state. Which they already must. Also, if Reuters has excessive profits, someone will probably make a competitor. That said, it's basically a solved problem, except when companies want to hand wring their way out of paying taxes. BTW, don't be ridiculous about "hundreds of thousands". Unless you mean thousands. Even TR in their sales literature only mentions 13k tax authorities [1] [1] http://onesource.thomsonreuters.com/share/solutions/41686/brochures/41736/74692 http://onesource.thomsonreuters.com/share/solutions/41686/br...