4 ms·
Regarding the sales tax “hijinks”, B&H actually won that lawsuit because the judge agreed that the law did not require them to pay sales tax on those payments a
by jkaplowitz 3y ago
Regarding the sales tax “hijinks”, B&H actually won that lawsuit because the judge agreed that the law did not require them to pay sales tax on those payments as the NY AG claimed. It’s not hijinks if they are interpreting the law more correctly than the government.
- woodruffw 3y agoI think it’s fair to call creative tax dodges “hijinks,” even if they ultimately end up being legal. This is the standard that I’d apply to Apple as well (with their Irish Maneuver). (Another example of this in B&H’s case is their store-branded credit card, which gives you a NY tax rebate. This appears to be fine legally, but it matches the general trend.)
- LanzVonL 3y agoThere's no virtue in ignoring tax loopholes, it makes you into a schmuck if you pay more taxes than you're legally required.
- woodruffw 3y agoSure; these are non-exclusive properties!
- pavon 3y agoI wouldn't consider that a tax dodge at all given that the New York State Tax Department had previously issued advisories stating that the way that B&H was accounting for their sales taxes was the correct way to do so[1], and what they were doing was no different from the manufacturer supporting a sale with a drop in wholesale price on the item, which they sometimes do instead of manufacturer coupons. The attorney general was just plain wrong. [1] https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/tax-authorities/1121150/bh-photo-prevails-in-ny-sales-tax-dispute https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/tax-authorities/1121150/...