Author Topic: Supreme Court rules states can force online retailers to collect sales tax  (Read 579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline eyephone

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 313
  • -Received: 573
  • Posts: 9760
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states can compel retailers to collect sales taxes even if they don't have a physical presence in the state.

The 5-4 decision overturns a 1992 Supreme Court precedent that effectively barred states from collecting such taxes, and could leave consumers paying more for online purchases as cash-strapped states tap a rich vein of new revenue.

In making their decision, justices ruled that South Dakota can collect sales taxes from online retailers like Wayfair, which brought the suit. In doing so, the court reversed a 1992 ruling that allowed states to levy taxes only on those businesses with a brick-and-mortar location within the state. The court said that law effectively incentivized businesses to "avoid physical presence" in states and led to "a judicially created tax shelter" Ultimately, the justices said the current laws are outdated.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/21/technology/wayfair-vs-south-dakota/index.html

Offline chumblyplus

  • Newbie
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 0
  • -Received: 0
  • Posts: 1
Oh my god! Bad news!  :( :(
Update gun mayhem 3.0

Offline USCTrojanCPA

  • Your CPA Realtor
  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 2065
  • -Received: 1636
  • Posts: 8124
  • Gender: Male
Yup, they call it "economic nexus" and it's another way for states to collect more sales tax revenue.
Martin Mania, CPA
AgencyOne
CA BRE License # 01799007
CA CPA License # 107675
mmania001@yahoo.com
714-747-3884 cell

Often imitated....Never duplicated!

Offline eyephone

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 313
  • -Received: 573
  • Posts: 9760
Yup, they call it "economic nexus" and it's another way for states to collect more sales tax revenue.

It’s not pro-business. This is a big expense to business to account for the sales tax. They have to hire outside accountants to help prepare sales tax. (Big cost to business) 

It might be equivalent to SOX 404 large costs to public companies. (internal controls) This was big because it gives the investor and capital markets confidence in public companies. Worst fear for an investor is that there is chaos and no controls at a public company. For example Such as no reviews over expenses, financial reporting is not accurate, people accessing data when they leave the company.

You can thank Trump for this! I think He was in favor of taxing internet sales. (give him a high five for the extra expense)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-21/states-can-require-internet-tax-collection-supreme-court-rules-jiomtl5c
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 09:08:45 AM by eyephone »

Offline zubs

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 64
  • -Received: 342
  • Posts: 1661
The current state sales tax model is following the S. Dakota model where if you sell more than $100,000/year or 200 transactions/year from out of state you will get a sales tax.  So if you are a relatively small internet seller, it won't affect you.


It doesn't guarantee other states will follow this model, but I've received letters that are copying it.


https://www.salestaxinstitute.com/resources/south-dakota-court-rules-state-s-economic-nexus-legislation-unconstitutional

Offline eyephone

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 313
  • -Received: 573
  • Posts: 9760
The current state sales tax model is following the S. Dakota model where if you sell more than $100,000/year or 200 transactions/year from out of state you will get a sales tax.  So if you are a relatively small internet seller, it won't affect you.


It doesn't guarantee other states will follow this model, but I've received letters that are copying it.


https://www.salestaxinstitute.com/resources/south-dakota-court-rules-state-s-economic-nexus-legislation-unconstitutional

That’s only South Dakota. Take a look at other states. It’s rigged!

Offline eyephone

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 313
  • -Received: 573
  • Posts: 9760
I have to ask. Where was Mimi Waters? How come she didn’t say anything when this took place? What did the GOP say? I know Trump was in favor of this.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 09:34:48 AM by eyephone »

Offline eyephone

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 313
  • -Received: 573
  • Posts: 9760
Think about it. Even with this ruling. There are many retailers that are failing. Their business model doesn’t work. This was suppose to even the playing field between e-commerce companies and retailers.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 09:35:32 AM by eyephone »

 

Talk Irvine Links

[Recent Posts]
[FAQ / Rules]

Site Supporters


Related Links

Recent Posts

Re: New Development: PS-5 by Cares
[Yesterday at 10:49:24 PM]


Re: New Development: PS-5 by Longhairdaddy
[Yesterday at 10:24:29 PM]


Musick jail is finally poised to grow by WTTCHMN
[Yesterday at 10:03:31 PM]


Re: EV/Plug-in/Other vehicles by qwerty
[Yesterday at 07:10:47 PM]


Re: EV/Plug-in/Other vehicles by id_rather_be_racing
[Yesterday at 06:28:52 PM]