3 ms·

The online retailer pays shipping companies, and those shipping companies do indeed have a nexus in the state and pay various taxes as appropriate. One could ar

by bdonlan 15y ago

The online retailer pays shipping companies, and those shipping companies do indeed have a nexus in the state and pay various taxes as appropriate. One could argue that asking the retailer to pay as well is a form of double-dipping.

dkrich 15y ago
That argument could be extended to any business operating anywhere. If we only paid taxes based upon what we directly consume from the government, I don't think many businesses would be collecting sales taxes. Your lease is paid to a landlord. Your inventory is purchased from a distributor. Your insurance premium is paid to an insurance company.
- cagey 15y ago
  So, I, in California, buy something from Amazon, which pays Fedex to ship it from out of state to me. Fedex pays "gas taxes" in CA, and other CA taxes too[1]. If Fedex ships my pkg by air, there are at least additionally airport fees/taxes. Since Fedex is not going bankrupt, it seems Amazon is at least paying Fedex enough to offset these expenses, so Amazon is in effect, through Fedex, paying these CA taxes (the same ones that in-state B&M stores would be paying for shipping a purchase to me, or that I would be paying if I bought an item at a local B&M store and transported it in my own motor vehicle). Now, in my understanding, the purpose of these taxes is to pay for the "services" CA is providing to the taxpayer (in this case, Fedex, and, indirectly, Amazon). For a shipper, "services" would include construction and maintenance of (and bureaucratic overhead associated with) the roads, bridges, airports, etc. But in your opinion Amazon is skating on their responsibility and should in addition charge sales tax to the customer (apparently for additional "services provided by the state" not covered by the above)? What are these additional services Amazon is receiving (in this transaction) from CA that are not being paid for via [[the above-mentioned]] taxes? [1] http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vehindustry/mcp/mcpfaq.htm#what http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vehindustry/mcp/mcpfaq.htm#what [[edit]]
  - dkrich 15y ago
    I'm not making any judgment about whether Amazon is "skating on their responsibility." I'm just trying to explain to people who are misunderstanding that states CAN CHARGE SALES TAX. This case has nothing to do with whether the state can charge a retailer a sales tax. They can. There is no doubt about that. The issue here is that the law, as written, was unconstitutional. Further, those who are claiming that brick and mortars consume a state's services but online retailers do not are wrong. This notion that retailers pay shippers who pay taxes makes zero sense.

by bdonlan 15y ago

dkrich 15y ago

That argument could be extended to any business operating anywhere. If we only paid taxes based upon what we directly consume from the government, I don't think many businesses would be collecting sales taxes. Your lease is paid to a landlord. Your inventory is purchased from a distributor. Your insurance premium is paid to an insurance company.

cagey 15y ago
So, I, in California, buy something from Amazon, which pays Fedex to ship it from out of state to me. Fedex pays "gas taxes" in CA, and other CA taxes too[1]. If Fedex ships my pkg by air, there are at least additionally airport fees/taxes. Since Fedex is not going bankrupt, it seems Amazon is at least paying Fedex enough to offset these expenses, so Amazon is in effect, through Fedex, paying these CA taxes (the same ones that in-state B&M stores would be paying for shipping a purchase to me, or that I would be paying if I bought an item at a local B&M store and transported it in my own motor vehicle). Now, in my understanding, the purpose of these taxes is to pay for the "services" CA is providing to the taxpayer (in this case, Fedex, and, indirectly, Amazon). For a shipper, "services" would include construction and maintenance of (and bureaucratic overhead associated with) the roads, bridges, airports, etc. But in your opinion Amazon is skating on their responsibility and should in addition charge sales tax to the customer (apparently for additional "services provided by the state" not covered by the above)? What are these additional services Amazon is receiving (in this transaction) from CA that are not being paid for via [[the above-mentioned]] taxes? [1] http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vehindustry/mcp/mcpfaq.htm#what http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vehindustry/mcp/mcpfaq.htm#what [[edit]]
- dkrich 15y ago
  I'm not making any judgment about whether Amazon is "skating on their responsibility." I'm just trying to explain to people who are misunderstanding that states CAN CHARGE SALES TAX. This case has nothing to do with whether the state can charge a retailer a sales tax. They can. There is no doubt about that. The issue here is that the law, as written, was unconstitutional. Further, those who are claiming that brick and mortars consume a state's services but online retailers do not are wrong. This notion that retailers pay shippers who pay taxes makes zero sense.