Supreme court to reconsider sales tax on interstate commerce

[bcr229]

The outcome of this case could make life interesting for small businesses that do a lot of online sales (like reptile sellers).

I collect and remit sales tax but only for WV. The cost of compliance is going to drive up prices across the board if the USSC rules that sales tax must be collected and remitted for interstate sales.

http://www.argusleader.com/story/ne...-dakota-sales-tax-collection-case/1029701001/

 

[NathanKS]

I don't know about it having a high cost of compliance. I regularly have to adjust clients portfolios in response to local tax changes, it takes under 5 minutes even when they own multiple homes in multiple jurisdictions.

There are already add-on's in most internet sales platforms that do it automatically. Alternatively, sales-tax.com lists them. here is inwood: http://www.sale-tax.com/InwoodWV

 

[bcr229]

LOL I know my own state's sales and use tax rates (all 39 of them based on city/county). Under the change being considered by the Court, I would have to calculate the sales tax for all of my customers nationwide based on their home address, then register my business with their states so I could file a return and remit the tax to that state.

 

[WebSlave]

Well, I've seen this argument bantered about for a long time now, I suppose. But what about the consumer? If the retailers are going to be raking in all that cash from an imposed nationwide enforcement of individual sales taxes, where does that money come from? Yep. Middle class takes it in the shorts, yet again. Not to mention that nebulous class of people known as "lower class" (because of income levels) that are certainly going to be hurt because they are trying to stretch what little money they have as far as they can with every purchase they make. Not to mention that sometimes when a person sees the advertised price, then sees the advertised price PLUS sales tax, well, to some that difference is just enough to get them to walk away from the purchase.

The forces for this proposal have been using a two pronged attack for this effort, whereby on one hand they will claim it is for the poor brick and mortar ONLY retailers going out of business because they can't compete against online companies that consumers do not have to pay sales tax to in order to buy the merchandise they want. Obviously such stores are inept or unable to also engage in an online marketing strategy, I guess. Oddly enough, if they only have a retail store in a single state, marketing in all of the rest of the states would quite likely completely negate that slight negative they experience within their own state. Certainly online marketing even within their own state would have to benefit their bottom line, you would think. So are they REALLY the force behind this movement? From a retail perspective, are they really suffering from this situation, or is it perhaps one or more LARGE online retail concerns jockeying for position instead?

Then on the other hand, the proponents claim that state and local entities are DUE money lost because the residents in those areas will purchase merchandise out of that local taxing area, for whatever reason, but taking money out of local taxing revenue mouths, nonetheless. Now that sounds like a much more powerful motivation, to me. But I guess using dupes as mentioned above, who can't put two and two together to better their own marketing strategy to broaden their customer base would certainly be helpful.

Honestly, I tend to buy a lot of products online and there are multiple reasons why I do that. For one, I have spent countless hours of my time, and $$ for gasoline running around town looking for something specific that I want or need, and would prefer to have it RIGHT NOW, but VERY OFTEN have no such luck and head on home empty handed. I don't know how many times I went to stores looking for something only to have a sales person tell me "No, we don't have it in stock, but we can order it for you. We'll have it here within a week." Jiminy Christmas, I can order it myself, please and thank you, and wouldn't have had to waste my time coming here to look for it! So I wind up ordering it online anyway having wasted all day in town. Seriously, if the retailers want their cake in that they want to force the playing field in their favor in the grab for customers, then they should have to EAT that cake too. Meaning, that the law would REQUIRE them to have everything they claim to stock IN STOCK at each and every store so local customers can buy LOCALLY from them. That seems fair to me, if they want to try to force something like this down our throats.

Heck, I remember not long after moving down here to north Florida, I had a Commodore Amiga computer and read about a new Motorola chip that was supposed to spruce up the processor speed a bit. Motorola 68010, I believe it was, to replace the stock 68000. So I found an electronics shop in Tallahassee and asked the guy at the counter about that new chip. He checked his books and said "No, don't carry it, but bring the computer in and I'll see if I can get one of these other chips I have to fit." Oh really? I kid you not. So yeah, that was a wasted effort. And a lesson learned about trying to limit purchases from people who actually know what the heck they are talking about. Which can be difficult to do, sometimes, locally.

Besides, whoever stated that the federal government has the authority to enforce a state's self proclaimed *right* to the money they want in the form of sales taxes from everyone in every other state? Which implies that each and every state has a right to FORCE another state to enforce that other state's laws. How is that going to fly? Is each state going to send around their own auditing teams to check on each and every sales entity in the entire USA for compliance? Are we going to have a virtual army of "revenuers" running around the countryside chasing down virtual "moonshiners"? I got news for them. No one in, say, New York has a darn thing to say about me here in Florida being required to collect state sales tax for them. None. If I were a retailer and someone from New York ordered something from me online, the collection of New York state sales tax from that person is THEIR problem for enforcing any such STATE laws on THEIR books, not mine. And I seriously doubt the federal government has any legal constitutional authority to force that kind of forced servitude on anyone else, neither.

And as for Amazon not being affected by any such proposed law, well you can bet your bottom dollar that somewhere deep underneath, Jeff Bezos has some notable irons in the fire behind all this because he certainly has a big financial reason for doing so. He would love nothing better than to further eliminate any competition and continue along his chosen path to monopolize online sales and merchandizing entirely. And he certainly has the money to grease those wheels needed for this effort. So yeah, follow the money and see who benefits the most. It is usually just THAT simple.

Interestingly enough, just today I went and ordered a new laptop PC to replace my old ailing unit that I use to process all my email necessities. Where did I order it from? Costco. And yes, they have a local store here, so that meant paying state sales tax. Did they have it in stock? Nope. So I have to pay state sales tax AND shipping for it, and I don't get it in my hot little hands right away, neither. The reason I decided to do so was because they offered the best deal in overall benefits that overshadowed a purely $$ decision. They offer an easy return policy and provide a 2 year warranty along with the price being competitive. They are great to deal with. AND they are local, so returns for repairs or replacement would be an easy matter to accomplish with very little to no hassle. So they had a marketing edge based on the additional services they provided as a company in order to make the sale, even with the drawback of sales tax and shipping.

THAT is how these brick and mortar retailers need to compete. Offer more for the dollars they want to take out of our pockets. Not whine to the government to FORCE us to deal with them locally because they want us to have no financial advantage to do otherwise. I think most people don't shop online because they really want to, they do it because in order to get what they want, they really have to. I think MOST people would prefer to have something they want to buy RIGHT now if they could do so, even at a higher price. But they usually can't so they do the next best thing out of necessity.

And as an additional thought on all this, has anyone considered the additional hidden costs being incurred by buying locally? How much money in wasted gasoline would likely be spent by a random sampling of 100 people driving vehicles all over town looking for something they want to buy? Now how much would be spent if those 100 people instead just purchased their items online, and the UPS or FedEX truck simply delivered those packages to the door of those 100 customers? Let's see, 100 vehicles on the road or just one burning gasoline. Heck, what about the additional pollution pumped into the atmosphere by those 100 vehicles on the roads? Which scenario would be better for the environment as a whole? Or doesn't that matter any longer to the people in government?

Anyway, all in all, logic dictates that such a law would very likely be completely unenforceable. Not to mention that it would likely put every small retailer right out of business in short order. Each and every one of them would have to keep current on each and every state and local sales tax requirement, fill out forms for every one of those entities, and then file all the necessary forms while sending checks for their payments too. I believe they would have to hire at least one additional body just to handle all of that required paperwork. Either that or most would just wind up getting out of the online business aspect of their marketing plan because they couldn't afford to continue it with all the paperwork and red tape. (Well gee, wouldn't Jeff Bezos just think that was a real darn shame?) Yeah, if the federal government wants to completely sink thousands of small business owners and their employees by putting them all out of business, I think this will be just a grand way to accomplish that task. Which, I presume, would also break Jeff Bezos' little heart.

As for me, personally? Well, non-compliance works for me. Sometimes you just gotta say "NO!" to stupid ideas, no matter who comes up with them.

IMHO, of course.

 

[bcr229]

Oral arguments are set for April 17.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/south-dakota-v-wayfair-inc/

 

[bcr229]

The case is moving forward; oral arguments were last week.

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Internet Sales Tax Case

In South Dakota v. Wayfair, South Dakota is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule precedent and hold that states and local governments may require retailers with no in-state physical presence to collect sales tax.

NCSL President Senator Deb Peters and NCSL's tax expert Max Behlke interviewed by NCSL Public Affairs Director Mick Bullock following the Supreme Court hearing. NCSL estimated that states lost $23.3 billion in 2012 from being prohibited from collecting sales tax from online and catalog purchases.

In 1967, in National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, the Supreme Court held that under its Commerce Clause jurisprudence, states and local governments cannot require businesses to collect sales tax unless the business has a physical presence in the state.

Twenty-five years later in Quill v. North Dakota (1992), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the physical presence requirement but admitted that “contemporary Commerce Clause jurisprudence might not dictate the same result” as the court had reached in Bellas Hess.

Customers buying from remote sellers still owe sales tax but they rarely pay it when the remote seller does not collect it. Congress has the authority to overrule Bellas Hess and Quill but has not done so.

Even before oral argument, South Dakota could count three votes likely in favor of overturning Bellas Hess and Quill. In March 2015, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion stating that the “legal system should find an appropriate case for this Court to reexamine Quill.” While on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then-Judge Neal Gorsuch wrote an opinion strongly implying that given the opportunity the Supreme Court should overrule Quill. Finally, while Justice Clarence Thomas voted North Dakota in Quill he has since rejected the concept of the dormant Commerce Clause, on which the Quill decisions rests.

At oral argument Kennedy and Gorsuch asked Wayfair’s attorney different lines of questions both of which indicated they remain anti-Quill. Thomas, as always, was silent. The most vocal champion of overturning Quill was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She said the court needs to take responsibility for overturning precedent it created, which is no longer appropriate in the current economy, instead of relying on Congress to act.

Justice Stephen Breyer was clearly torn about the case. He said he read both sides’ briefs and concluded both positions were “absolutely right.” He looked to the attorneys arguing for both sides to help sort out issues including exactly how much money is on the table, whether it really is easy and inexpensive to collect sales tax, and whether tax collection should be retroactive.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor lead the charge defending Quill, asking South Dakota’s attorney about many of the same issues Breyer raised—but taking a more certain approach that the answers were known and point to keeping Quill the law of the land. Justice Elena Kagan asked a number of questions expressing the view that Congress should overturn Quill, if it wants to, given that Congress can craft a more complicated solution than the court can. Justice Samuel Alito also didn’t seem particularly sympathetic to South Dakota’s position, suggesting that if Quill was overturned states would “grab everything they could” rather than exempt small businesses from having to collect.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked questions of both sides, something he has done more often since Justice Antonin Scalia died. His questions unfavorable to South Dakota focused on, among other things, the burden of requiring small businesses to collect sales tax and honoring Congress’s decision to leave things the way they are.

The Supreme Court will issue an opinion in this case by the end of June.

 

[bcr229]

High Court: Online shoppers can be forced to pay sales tax

Interesting. Truly tiny one person (or couple) small businesses that don't have a ton of online sales won't be affected, and corps like Amazon can eat the cost of compliance. The ones in the mid-range are going to be hurting.

 

[WebSlave]

So unless each state is going to begin intercepting packages coming into their state, how are they going to KNOW who owes them state sales tax?

My guess is that some unscrupulous online sellers will be collecting sales tax from their customers, but that money will not be finding it's way to the states. How would the states know?

In the case of something like Ebay, who will be responsible for collecting the taxes? Ebay or the individual sellers?

Sure, just when the economy appears to be bouncing back, let's kick the legs out from under it.

 

[WebSlave]

Sign eBay's Petition to Support Fair Tax Policy For US Sellers & Buyers

 

[bcr229]

So unless each state is going to begin intercepting packages coming into their state, how are they going to KNOW who owes them state sales tax?

States will likely enter reciprocating agreements where when they audit businesses in their own state, they send the info on how much business that company did (#transactions, #sales, etc) did with buyers in other states. Part of the agreement could include the company's state being able to collect for other states on their behalf, with offsetting credits/debits between the states as needed.

I was audited three years in a row; WV basically wanted everything I had for 2010-2012. I ended up turning over a dump of all QuickBooks invoices and expenses, all bank statements, all receipts proving expenses, etc. So it would have been child's play to compile my customer list by state along with how much the customers purchased, and pass that info along to other states.

 

[WebSlave]

Yeah, but suppose New York state demanded the same info from you? What would you do then?

As for your home state providing that sort of information to each and every other state, I would have a real problem with that sort of information being spread around to whoever asked for it.

I'm thinking this is going to earn attorneys a lot of money.

 

[bcr229]

As for your home state providing that sort of information to each and every other state, I would have a real problem with that sort of information being spread around to whoever asked for it.

It would be summary info.

WV: Hey NY we audited 100 businesses and 18 of them met your threshold to pay sales tax last year but only 10 of them did. Those other 8 owe a total of $50,000. We'll collect it and send it along.

NY: Cool but we audited 100 businesses and while 20 of them met your threshold to pay sales tax in WV, only 15 of them did. Those other 5 owe a total of $30,000 so we'll collect that and you just pay us $20,000 from what you collect.

As has been pointed out, there's not a lot NY could do to a business in WV - but WV can put the screws to a WV business.

 

[WebSlave]

I can't help but wonder how the SCOTUS seemingly ignored the issue of jurisdiction for the states? For instance, the state of New York really has no jurisdiction of any persons or businesses in West Virginia whatsoever. Certainly they do over the PEOPLE within their own home state making the purchases, but how is that the responsibility of the company making the sale outside of New York's legal boundaries?

Seems to me this will generate a very robust underground market of basically shadow retailers just acting as fronts with no real traceable store in ANY USA state. Which brings up the next thought I had...

I'm curious how offshore retail sales will be impacted by this? This could prove to be a real boon for China. Heck, I think Ebay has basically been taken over by China lately, and my guess is that China is going to greatly expand their online marketing reach as a result. Does anyone seriously think that China is going to collect state sales tax and send it to every state in the USA? I seriously doubt that. Heck most of the retailers that could be impacted are already selling merchandise manufactured in China, so all they need to to now is to cut out those middlemen.

Seems to me that this is a great opportunity for China to basically put nearly EVERY retail sales business in the USA out of business. Which they have nearly done with USA manufacturing already anyway. Zillions of Chinese companies are already doing direct retail sales through Ebay, so it's going to be only a very small step to expand on that.

I think there are going to be some painful unintended consequences as a result of this decision by the SCOTUS. And it might very well wind up back in their laps in pretty short order. Or else Congress will attempt to neuter it with legislation.

Of course, Trump seems to be for this decision, so no telling how this is going to go if a countering bill reaches his desk, I guess.

But in the interim, my guess is that a lot of online retailers will simply request states to PROVE what they believe they are owed by them. Which means only the largest of fish will be targeted, which will just drive people to the smaller fish still offering sales with no associated state sales tax.

Of course, I'm sure I'm not seeing all the pieces on the board neither, so who knows what is really going on? Besides screwing us, the little people, of course.

 

[bcr229]

I can't help but wonder how the SCOTUS seemingly ignored the issue of jurisdiction for the states? For instance, the state of New York really has no jurisdiction of any persons or businesses in West Virginia whatsoever. Certainly they do over the PEOPLE within their own home state making the purchases, but how is that the responsibility of the company making the sale outside of New York's legal boundaries?

IDK. I guess it will play out in the courts.

Seems to me this will generate a very robust underground market of basically shadow retailers just acting as fronts with no real traceable store in ANY USA state. Which brings up the next thought I had...

Or more buyers and sellers will start using crypto currency, as other forms of payment (aside from cash) are easily traced.

I'm curious how offshore retail sales will be impacted by this? This could prove to be a real boon for China. Heck, I think Ebay has basically been taken over by China lately, and my guess is that China is going to greatly expand their online marketing reach as a result. Does anyone seriously think that China is going to collect state sales tax and send it to every state in the USA? I seriously doubt that. Heck most of the retailers that could be impacted are already selling merchandise manufactured in China, so all they need to to now is to cut out those middlemen.

Seems to me that this is a great opportunity for China to basically put nearly EVERY retail sales business in the USA out of business. Which they have nearly done with USA manufacturing already anyway. Zillions of Chinese companies are already doing direct retail sales through Ebay, so it's going to be only a very small step to expand on that.

You'd have to take the cost of shipping retail purchases into account though. I've shipped tank vests internationally and it adds $30-40 per item for shipping and customs fees, and some buyers reported back and said their shipments were inspected to ensure all fees had been paid before they could take possession. So, I think they'll still ship product in by the cargo load and use US companies as retailers.

I think there are going to be some painful unintended consequences as a result of this decision by the SCOTUS. And it might very well wind up back in their laps in pretty short order. Or else Congress will attempt to neuter it with legislation.

Of course, Trump seems to be for this decision, so no telling how this is going to go if a countering bill reaches his desk, I guess.

But in the interim, my guess is that a lot of online retailers will simply request states to PROVE what they believe they are owed by them. Which means only the largest of fish will be targeted, which will just drive people to the smaller fish still offering sales with no associated state sales tax.

Of course, I'm sure I'm not seeing all the pieces on the board neither, so who knows what is really going on? Besides screwing us, the little people, of course.

It will definitely be interesting to see how things shake out.

 

[bcr229]

Incidentally, Pennsylvania passed this last year. The state's reporting limit is only $10,000, which IMO is absurdly low. If the out-of-state seller doesn't collect and remit sales tax then it's supposed to turn over a customer list stating how much each PA customer purchased.

It's almost more complicated to not collect and remit the sales tax when you look at the reporting requirements for electing not to do so.

Pennsylvania Enacts Notice and Reporting Requirements and Economic Nexus Legislation

Pennsylvania has enacted legislation requiring certain remote sellers, marketplace facilitators, and referrers to elect to either collect and remit Pennsylvania sales tax or comply with notice and reporting requirements. If any of the above do not collect and remit sales tax, they must notify purchasers regarding the sales and use tax, and report specified information regarding purchasers or remote sellers to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue. For purposes of the legislation, a “remote seller” is a person who does not maintain a place of business in Pennsylvania and who, through a forum, makes retail sales of tangible personal property that is subject to sales or use tax. Marketplace facilitators, marketplace sellers, referrers, and employees are not considered remote sellers. A “marketplace facilitator” is a person who facilitates retail sales of tangible personal property by listing or advertising tangible personal property for sale in any forum and either directly or indirectly through agreements/arrangements with third parties, collects payment from the purchaser and transmits payment to the seller. A “referrer” is a person, other than a person who prints or publishes a newspaper, who has an agreement/arrangement with a marketplace seller or remote seller to:

•list or advertise for sale one or more products of a marketplace seller or remote seller;
•receive consideration from the marketplace seller or remote seller from the sale offered in the listing or advertisement;
•transfer a purchaser to a marketplace seller, remote seller, or affiliated person to complete a sale.
•Does not collect a receipt from the purchaser for the sale.

“Referrer” includes a person that may also be a vendor. “Referrer” does not include a person who provides internet advertising services and does not provide the marketplace seller or remote seller’s shipping terms or advertise whether the marketplace seller or remote seller collects a sales or use tax. A “marketplace seller” is a person who has an agreement with a marketplace facilitator under which the marketplace facilitator facilitates sales for the marketplace seller. By March 1, 2018 and June 1 of each calendar year thereafter (beginning June 1, 2019), remote sellers, marketplace facilitators, and referrers with aggregate sales of $10,000 or more in the previous 12-month period must elect to collect and remit Pennsylvania sales tax or comply with the notice and reporting requirements. Click here to access the election form on the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue website. For marketplace facilitators, the election requirement applies to:

•retail sales through the marketplace facilitator’s forum that are made by or on behalf of a marketplace seller that does not maintain a place of business in Pennsylvania; and
•retail sales made by a marketplace facilitator on its own behalf, if the marketplace facilitator does not maintain a place of business in Pennsylvania.

For referrers, the election requirement applies only to retail sales:

•directly resulting from a referral of a purchaser to a marketplace seller that does not maintain a place of business in Pennsylvania;
•directly resulting from a referral of a purchaser to a remote seller; and
•of the referrer’s own products if the referrer does not maintain a place of business in Pennsylvania

Remote sellers and marketplace facilitators will be required to post a conspicuous notice on their forums to inform Pennsylvania purchasers that:

•sales or use tax may be due in connection with the purchase and delivery;
•Pennsylvania requires the purchaser to file a return if use tax is due; and
•the notice is required under statute.

Remote sellers and marketplace facilitators must also provide written notice to purchasers at the time of sale that includes:

•a statement that sales tax is not being collected in connection with the purchase;
•a statement that the purchaser may be required to remit use tax directly to the Department of Revenue; and
•instructions for obtaining additional information from the Department regarding whether and how to remit the use tax.

The notice must be prominently displayed on all invoices and order forms and on each sales receipt or similar document.

Referrers electing to comply with the notice requirements will be required to post a conspicuous notice on their platforms to inform Pennsylvania purchasers that:

•sales or use tax may be due in connection with the purchase and delivery;
•the person to whom the purchaser is being referred may or may not collect and remit sales tax to the Department of Revenue in connection with the transaction;
•Pennsylvania requires the purchaser to file a return if use tax is due and is not collected by the person to whom the purchaser is being referred; and
•the notice is required under statute.

The notice must also contain instructions for obtaining additional information from the Department regarding the use tax.

By January 31 of each year, a remote seller or marketplace facilitator that elects to comply with notice and reporting requirements must provide a written report to each purchaser required to receive the notice. The report must include:

•a statement that the remote seller or marketplace facilitator did not collect sales tax on the purchaser’s transactions and that the purchaser may be required to remit use tax to the Department;
•a list, by date, indicating the type and purchase price of each product purchased or leased by the purchaser from the remote seller or marketplace facilitator and delivered to a location within Pennsylvania;
•instructions for obtaining additional information from the Department regarding whether and how to remit the use tax;
•a statement that the remote seller or marketplace facilitator must submit a report to the department that includes the purchaser’s name and the aggregate dollar amount of the purchases made from the remote seller or marketplace facilitator; and
•additional information as required by the department.

By January 31 of each year, remote sellers and marketplace facilitators that elect to comply with notice and reporting requirements must also provide a written report to the Department of Revenue. For each purchaser required to receive the notice during the previous calendar year, the report must include:

•the purchaser’s name;
•the purchaser’s billing address and, if different, the purchaser’s last known mailing address;
•the address in Pennsylvania where products were delivered to the purchaser;
•the aggregate dollar amount of purchases that the purchaser made from the remote seller or marketplace facilitator; and
•the name and address of the remote seller, marketplace facilitator, or marketplace seller that made the sales to the purchaser.

By January 31 of each year, a referrer that elects to comply with notice and reporting requirements must provide a written report to each remote seller to whom the referrer transferred a potential purchaser located in Pennsylvania during the previous calendar year. The report must include:

•a statement that Pennsylvania may impose sales or use tax on the transaction;
•a statement that the remote seller may be required to elect to either collect and remit the sales and use tax or comply with notice and reporting requirements; and
•instructions for obtaining additional information regarding sales and use tax from the Department.

By January 31 of each year, referrers must also provide a report to the Department containing a list of remote sellers who received the notice described above.

The notice requirements and requirements for providing reports to the Department of Revenue:

•are effective February 1, 2018, and will apply beginning on April 1, 2018, for sales of products and services other than digital products and related services; and
•are effective February 1, 2019, and will apply beginning on April 1, 2019, for digital products and related services.
•The annual notices will be required starting in 2019 for the 2018 activities.

Penalties for non-compliance with the notice and reporting provisions will be $20,000 or 20% of the total sales in Pennsylvania during the previous twelve months, whichever is less, against a remote seller, marketplace facilitator or referrer that makes an election to comply with the notice and reporting requirements or is deemed to have made such election and fails to comply. The penalty shall be assessed separately for each violation but may only be assessed once in a calendar year. For a period of five years after the effective date, the Department may abate or reduce the penalty due to hardship or for good cause. A positive provision in the bill prohibits the filing of a class action against a marketplace facilitator or a referrer on behalf of purchasers related to an overpayment of sales or use tax collected by the facilitator or referrer, regardless of whether such action is characterized as a tax refund claim. Purchasers will retain their right to file for a tax refund from the Department. If federal legislation relating to remote sellers has not been enacted by December 31, 2018, the Independent Fiscal Office, in conjunction with the Department, shall conduct a study assessing the legal implications and fiscal impact of mandating notice requirements for remote sellers. (Act 43 (H.B. 542), Laws 2017)

Posted on November 20, 2017

 

[WebSlave]

I think a lot of potentially impacted online businesses will simply choose to not comply. Unless they themselves provide the evidence that PA would need to prove their case in a lawsuit, PA has no provable case to pursue in court. I do not believe that PA could force any company to self incriminate in a demand for such evidence.

I know that if I were still selling animals, and possibly impacted, that would be my choice. Sorry, but unless I am within the PA state boundaries, I don't have to pay a damn bit of attention to any laws that PA may pass.

Any government entity can get a law passed. That doesn't necessarily mean it is legally binding, much less legally enforceable. Heck, I can buy or make a speed limit sign and put it on the road through my property. Does that mean anyone has to obey it? Nope. But I guess some will, regardless.

Sometimes you just have to stand by your rights and say "HELL NO!"

 

[akane]

I can't say the sales tax has much of an impact at all on where and what I purchase. It's nice to look at my checkout total and say "yay, I don't have to pay a few dollars in tax" but it changes little if it's there. If everything online had the same taxes added then it would just eliminate a variable on the totals I compare when the company with tax doesn't always end up more expensive than the one without anyway.

Mostly I don't buy locally because the stores lack options, it takes a lot more time, sometimes I have no good transportation somewhere, and the cost difference online for better options is far more savings than the cost of sales tax. I joke about why can't we just put a giant delivery box with heating and cooling out front and every local business can just deliver my order while I make it from my home computer or phone while out of town. I had to get a new set of good clothes with less than 24hr notice recently and the fact I absolutely could not find the type of shirt I wanted in my size with no time to go to anther store was at least equal to the extremely higher cost in why I am making sure I never have to go into a store for such things again. I'd rather slap a label on it, drop it in the mail box, wait for the refund to appear, and order the replacement size of exactly what I want on those occasions I don't already know my size for that company. I did just that recently with 2 companies to figure out what to keep buying from them in the future.

In the case of amazon prime it shows up at my door with free 2 day shipping nearly all the time so I don't even have to bother maximizing what I put in my cart or waiting to order things together. Sometimes I probably could get something cheaper than amazon but the reasons I don't bother are similar to the reasons superstores first spread across the US. My recent exceptions were the few times available options were not satisfactory. I found a product I liked the best on amazon but only a fraction of what all the company manufacturers so I ordered a pack of samples from the company to put in a large order direct from their website in the future. Others were some of the few specialty items amazon does not really cover.

I'd probably still order online if I had to pay more than local stores for the options, convenience, and time saved. I used to get a lot of my groceries delivered by schwann's despite being more than the grocery store for not really improved quality but the new guy keeps showing up at the wrong times and I no longer have a freezer that is not in the main house for him to just leave it in so it no longer has a single benefit. 10mins to order something when I know exactly what I need and then wait for it to show up in a couple days instead of 10-30mins driving to the correct store, finding it, settling for what they have or driving to another store, going through checkout, and driving home.... It would take a large swing the other direction in price comparison to counter that. I'd rather give up some things I want than waste an entire day worth of time buying stuff that often ranges from not quite to entirely different than what I was looking for in order to save a little money.