Taxing of Internet Purchases

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I'm reading this thusly.

Amazon knows the affiliates are indefensible, but the subsidiaries are a new wrinkle that they can attempt to counter in court.

I'm interested to see how this shakes out. Can Amazon just up and move entirely, or is CA kind of necessary, as much of the talent is here?

[Alex]

I'm still curious, as we descend into the technical requirements of following this new law, if anybody here has ever reported and paid the use tax on Amazon purchases as required on line 95 of the 540?

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Alex

I'm still curious, as we descend into the technical requirements of following this new law, if anybody here has ever reported and paid the use tax on Amazon purchases as required on line 95 of the 540?

Nope. And i know it is a wee bit hypocritical of me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Not I.

[RStar]

Although I know this law only seeks to enforce the law already in place, I am against it. So, no, I have not ever place any figure into the line 95. Californians are over taxed already.

[alphabassettgrrl]

It has to be a pretty hefty discount or not available for me to buy online. I much rather pick it up in a real store. And I'm willing to pay a bit more. Just like I'd rather pay more than shop at Wal-Mart.

Even though ordering online generally avoids paying sales tax.

[Frikitiki]

In Hawaii the legislature attempted to do this two years ago. amazon cut ties before it was even a law. In Hawaii we also have a tax called a USE TAX. If I bring something into Hawaii, I'm supposed to pay a 4% tax to the State of Hawaii. They already have a law on the books, but they don't enforce it (unless you buy a car on the mainland and have it shipped in). Instead of trying to enforce the law on the citizens, they are trying to cut down the number of touchpoints and force the businesses to collect the money making their job easier.

[Alex]

So you disagree that it is a disadvantage (regardless of whether it is surmountable) that California businesses (big box store or small mom and pop), all other things being equal, have to charge 10% more for the exact same item than an online retailer?

What if, instead of requiring Amazon to collect the use tax directly, the law instead said that Amazon (and other reatailers) would have to provide (ignoring the question of Quill) to California a 1099 equivalent reporting how much each Californian spent at their web site so as to enable California to effectively enforce the already existing use tax law?

Is this aspect of sales tax similar to how we tend to feel about speed limits. We're ok with the limit being the law, with someone occasionally getting slapped for breaking that law, but it would be viewed as horribly unfair if a way was found to actually give people a ticket every time they actually exceeded the limit.

[Morrigoon]

See I view the no tax thing as just helping to defray the cost of shipping. Now obviously there's that thing where you spend over X amount and get free shipping, but I guess I always figured shipping and tax cancelled each other out, so the internet, for me, competes mainly on base price of the item.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

See I view the no tax thing as just helping to defray the cost of shipping. Now obviously there's that thing where you spend over X amount and get free shipping, but I guess I always figured shipping and tax cancelled each other out, so the internet, for me, competes mainly on base price of the item.

Except in a physical store, the shipping cost is just built into the price of the item.