[beholder3]

The US Supreme Court ruled today that states can force online retailers to collect sales taxes. This can put an end to tax-free shopping from online retailers like B&H and Adorama (Amazon is already collecting sales tax):

Buying tax free photo gear in the US could be over after Supreme Court decision | Photo Rumors

More:

Supreme Court lets states force online retailers to collect sales tax | Reuters

Being from Europe I never understood how this different treatment of sales could be legal.

[LensBeginner]

*snip*

Being from Europe I never understood how this different treatment of sales could be legal.

At least in Italy, there were issues with IVA and online retailers until recently.
IIRC Amazon used the reverse charge method before, but there were loopholes, and no controls over the kind of items that were purchased.
I think online commerce in its inception has taken advantage of the regulatory vacuum mostly everywhere.

[link81]

sales tax is so stupid.
i pay tax on the money i make, then i pay tax for the privilege to spend it.
i have no problem with income tax, but sales tax on the other hand.......

[travelswsage]

sales tax is so stupid.

Agreed. And so are many other taxes. Property tax is my personal pet peeve. As long as one has to pay over and over simply to live in your own house or keep your own property you never truly own anything and you can never be truly free.


I like this decision though. As I pointed out a while back in another thread in almost all states you are already legally required to pay this tax. Most people simply don't. Since I have to file sales and use tax returns in one of my businesses and use tax returns in the other I am at a distinct business disadvantage to people who do not pay what they are required to pay and who in some instances, voted for the very politicians who created these taxes in the first place. And not to get to political -- it irks me to no end to be lectured about social responsibilities only to see those who advocate the loudest for what is "right and fair and just" not actual pay their fair share for the programs they want.

[D1N0]

i've always wondered about the flawed way sales taxes are collected in the us. So easy to cheat.

[victormeldrew]

Nobody likes tax - but if it isn't collected one way, it needs to be collected another. So whether it's sales tax or income tax or import duties, is fairly irrelevant...it all comes from people and goes to the treasury.


What's more important is that it is done fairly. It seems distinctly unfair to force a bricks and mortar store to collect tax, but an online store can sell to the same person in the same place tax-free. If you want physical stores to be able to survive, there needs to be a level playing field.

[C_Jones]

I can see sales tax being applied if the sale is from a business based in the state you are in that utilizes the internet for sales, but I would never approve of sales tax on goods purchased on the internet from a business based in another state. That would be illogical and would not coincide with original Constitutional principle.

[monochrome]

Buying tax free photo gear in the US could be over after Supreme Court decision | Photo Rumors

More:

Supreme Court lets states force online retailers to collect sales tax | Reuters

Being from Europe I never understood how this different treatment of sales could be legal.

We call it Federalism. Each state is a sovereign unto itself and there should be few overriding National Rules. Various reasons for exceptions under national authority exist, such as broadcast rules. Over recent decades the Federalism concept has been eroded by activist courts that desire a national outcome regardless of precedent and Congressional intent.

This ruling returns to states’ rights, which is actually an originalist (conservative in today’s parlance) concept.

[Rondec]

Agreed. And so are many other taxes. Property tax is my personal pet peeve. As long as one has to pay over and over simply to live in your own house or keep your own property you never truly own anything and you can never be truly free.


I like this decision though. As I pointed out a while back in another thread in almost all states you are already legally required to pay this tax. Most people simply don't. Since I have to file sales and use tax returns in one of my businesses and use tax returns in the other I am at a distinct business disadvantage to people who do not pay what they are required to pay and who in some instances, voted for the very politicians who created these taxes in the first place. And not to get to political -- it irks me to no end to be lectured about social responsibilities only to see those who advocate the loudest for what is "right and fair and just" not actual pay their fair share for the programs they want.

It should actually help brick and mortar stores with a local presence. It is rough for someone who has a store in your community when you go in, check out a product in store and then order it online to avoid paying sales tax. Beyond which, a lot of states required the consumer to list on their taxes all large internet purchase and pay sales tax on them after the fact (not that anyone ever did that).

Not to get political, but in the end, state revenue has to add up to enough to pay for services provided by that state. States with a lot of resources like Texas and Alaska don't need much tax revenue. States with fewer resources need tax revenue and then it is a question of how you divide up those taxes (sales/property/income/gas/corporate/etc).

I always felt sorry for local businesses who ended up losing business just because you could avoid taxes on the internet.

[DeadJohn]

Most of us like to have functioning roads, emergency services, schools, parks, etc. It has to be paid for somehow.

[beholder3]

We call it Federalism.

I wasn't wondering about the "state by state" part, but about the different treatment of sales tax per channel (online versus physical store). Allowing online retailers to avoid tax surcharges is a good way to kill brick and mortar stores who suffer from the extra cost they incur anyhow.

[BigMackCam]

Folks, I'm stating the obvious, but since taxation is a subject that is irrevocably tied to government(s), please let's stay well clear of politics (per our forum rules), and keep discussion focused only on the impact to us as photographers and buyers, and to importers / retailers.

Thanks in advance

[aslyfox]

you can find the Supreme Court decision here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf


the SC overruled an earlier Supreme Court decision ( requiring a " physical presence in the state " ) as out dated and approved a state law which required out of state sellers with substantial business - (" $100,000 of goods or services into South Dakota or engage in 200 or more separate transactions for the delivery of goods and services into the State on an annual basis. " ) tp pay sale ta

so in the future whether or not the out of state seller has to collect sales tax will depend

on what the state law says

and whether that is deemed to be " substantial business "

[stevebrot]

I live in a state (Washington) with a sales tax and no income tax. I also live just across the Columbia River from Oregon. Oregon has an income tax and no sales tax. Life is strange for those of us on the border...

• During most of the almost thirty years I have lived here, I have worked in Oregon. I was liable for Oregon income tax because the location where the labor was performed determines jurisdiction. I am not allowed to participate in Oregon elections and was taxed both without representation and by different laws/provisions than residents. That being said, working there had a side effect in that online and mail-order purchases might be delivered to the office rather than being taxed and sitting on the porch all day long waiting to be pilfered. In addition, the daily commute was handy to many business where I could make tax-free purchases. The difference on a $60 purchase pretty much buys lunch at a food cart.
• Washington asserts the right to assess sales tax on any purchase I make regardless of where it was purchased on the assumption that it will be used in Washington. I guess it is one of the privileges of residency. In theory, they could tax my Oregon-purchased lunch if it were not fully digested by the time I get home. One can be sure that items delivered to a Washington address will be assessed Washington tax.
• Washington does not tax non-resident purchases, but only for physical stores with presentation of official ID.
• The sales tax rate varies by county and municipal jurisdiction and whether the point of purchase is within various zones within each. The extra tax zones are gerrymandered around shopping areas. For stuff delivered to my house, I pay 8.4%. If I lived in Seattle, the rate would be 9.6%.
• The above point has serious implications for online business since the zones and rates may change quarterly depending on changes to local laws.
• What is not clear is whether Washington state will assess tax on all online transactions by companies such as Amazon (headquartered in Seattle) regardless of delivery address and what rate might be assessed.
• It is also not clear whether services such as streaming media or subscription software agreements might also be taxable if the subscriber or provider have Washington presence and/or headquarters.
• At present, Washington does not provide a Web-accessible API to provide easy lookup of rates by street address. There are commercial services and this court ruling will a boon to them.

What fun! We will see whether the states will avoid the temptation to subject online retailers to "undue burden".


Steve

(...time to get a Post Box in Portland...)

[Racer X 69]

Property tax is my personal pet peeve. As long as one has to pay over and over simply to live in your own house or keep your own property you never truly own anything and you can never be truly free.

As an Indian once said, no man can own the land.