3 ms·

> The value to the company was provided in Illinois, with bits inside of Illinois. The company doesn't value bits inside California that it cannot access. They

> The value to the company was provided in Illinois, with bits inside of Illinois. The company doesn't value bits inside California that it cannot access. They compensated for bits they can actually access within Illinois. Your comment confirmed that the value originated in one place, California where the company could not access it, and was transferred to another place, Illinois where the company could access it. The employee was compensated for the transfer of this value. That is interstate commerce, and therefore the jurisdiction of the originating state, California, can apply. > It may be worth something to someone in California before it's exported, but that transaction never happened. In this case though the actual transaction took place in exchange for a product inside Illinois. The company in Illinois compensated the employee for their time to generate intellectual property, so the company valued their work and exchanged payment to the employee for exchange of that value. So then the work clearly has value prior to being packaged and sold to the end customer. > I buy ammunition online from a company in Oklahoma, where all the business and employees of the ammunition company resides. Yet I pay sales tax here in <my state> based on recent court rulings regarding 'internet sales tax' which state the tax is where the transaction took place, not where the company and/or workers physically resides. The exchange of value and compensation between a company and their employees is governed by employment law. You seem to have conflated the concept of an employee with that of a business or an independent contractor, which are not the same thing, and are not governed by the same laws. When you hire employees across state lines, you are extending your business operations across state lines, and are subject to state jurisdiction. That is the cost-benefit trade-off of hiring outside your state, if you hired employees outside your country, for example in Canada or Mexico, then you would be beholden to inter-national laws governed by treaties. > The employer is buying IP within their state lines of Illinois. No, the business is not "purchasing IP within their state lines", the business is employing a person who resides within another state, and therefore the business must abide by the employment laws of the employee's state, as well as the business state of origin. An example of buying IP would be purchasing a legal contract template, or a software license. In the examples I provided sales tax for the state where the purchase originated would apply. > You may be arguing the 'employee' is actually misclassified and is an illegal exporter who is a business owner in California with an export and bit smuggling business. Go after this 'employee' (bit smuggler), not the person buying bits in Illinois. I'm unsure if you are trolling or just very confused, but your statement makes no sense and does not fit within the logical framework of United States inter-state commerce law. Employees are not classified as an independent business, they are and extension of a business's operations.

notch656a 4y ago
>That is interstate commerce, and therefore the jurisdiction of the originating state, California, can apply. States are divested of the power to regulate interstate commerce. This is squarely jurisdiction of federal government, not the states. >Your comment confirmed that the value originated in one place The bits originated in California. The value originated in Illinois. It was valueless to the company while locked in California. Perhaps it was valuable to someone else who never made the transaction in California, but not to the company in Illinois who actually paid for it. >The company in Illinois compensated the employee for their time to generate intellectual property, If the employer were simply paying for time then why not hire a prisoner or a nice retired old lady to sit in a chair for 8 hours a day? We both know they aren't paying for time, they're paying for the useful bits they have in Illinois. They want the IP, not to burn people's time. >So then the work clearly has value prior to being packaged and sold to the end customer. It has value to the customer in Illinois, not in California. It is valueless to the customer locked up in California. It has value perhaps to the employee in California, but not the employer (customer). >You seem to have conflated the concept of an employee with that of a business or an independent contractor, which are not the same thing, and are not governed by the same laws I haven't conflated, I'm showing the courts contradict themselves. They say it's fair game to charge sales tax even with no physical presence, with no tax paid to the other state with physical presence, but then want the exact opposite if you buy IP from an 'employee' instead of bullets from a company. It makes no sense. They want to have their cake and eat it too. One may argue such wishy-washy behavior is 'arbitrary and capricious' which could cast doubt on whether their rulings are even enforceable. >No, the business is not "purchasing IP within their state lines", the business is employing a person who resides within another state, and therefore the business must abide by the employment laws of the employee's state, as well as the business state of origin. An example of buying IP would be purchasing a legal contract template, or a software license. In the examples I provided sales tax for the state where the purchase originated would apply. We simply disagree here. I see that they are purchasing IP within their state lines, you see something completely different. >I'm unsure if you are trolling or just very confused I could say the same for the state of California. It seems they are trolling to go after someone in Illinois for buying bits in Illinois. Once it was in Illinois it had value, before that it didn't have value to the buyer. Again it was useless to the Illinois company while locked up in California. California wants to regulate interstate commerce, which of course is flatly unconstitutional. California's tax board is a clown circus of petty tyrants who have tortured and subjugated their victims for far too long.

notch656a 4y ago

>That is interstate commerce, and therefore the jurisdiction of the originating state, California, can apply. States are divested of the power to regulate interstate commerce. This is squarely jurisdiction of federal government, not the states. >Your comment confirmed that the value originated in one place The bits originated in California. The value originated in Illinois. It was valueless to the company while locked in California. Perhaps it was valuable to someone else who never made the transaction in California, but not to the company in Illinois who actually paid for it. >The company in Illinois compensated the employee for their time to generate intellectual property, If the employer were simply paying for time then why not hire a prisoner or a nice retired old lady to sit in a chair for 8 hours a day? We both know they aren't paying for time, they're paying for the useful bits they have in Illinois. They want the IP, not to burn people's time. >So then the work clearly has value prior to being packaged and sold to the end customer. It has value to the customer in Illinois, not in California. It is valueless to the customer locked up in California. It has value perhaps to the employee in California, but not the employer (customer). >You seem to have conflated the concept of an employee with that of a business or an independent contractor, which are not the same thing, and are not governed by the same laws I haven't conflated, I'm showing the courts contradict themselves. They say it's fair game to charge sales tax even with no physical presence, with no tax paid to the other state with physical presence, but then want the exact opposite if you buy IP from an 'employee' instead of bullets from a company. It makes no sense. They want to have their cake and eat it too. One may argue such wishy-washy behavior is 'arbitrary and capricious' which could cast doubt on whether their rulings are even enforceable. >No, the business is not "purchasing IP within their state lines", the business is employing a person who resides within another state, and therefore the business must abide by the employment laws of the employee's state, as well as the business state of origin. An example of buying IP would be purchasing a legal contract template, or a software license. In the examples I provided sales tax for the state where the purchase originated would apply. We simply disagree here. I see that they are purchasing IP within their state lines, you see something completely different. >I'm unsure if you are trolling or just very confused I could say the same for the state of California. It seems they are trolling to go after someone in Illinois for buying bits in Illinois. Once it was in Illinois it had value, before that it didn't have value to the buyer. Again it was useless to the Illinois company while locked up in California. California wants to regulate interstate commerce, which of course is flatly unconstitutional. California's tax board is a clown circus of petty tyrants who have tortured and subjugated their victims for far too long.