Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday June 22 2018, @07:51PM   Printer-friendly
from the everybody-self-reports,-right? dept.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/21/606463186/with-billions-at-stake-supreme-court-rules-states-may-tax-online-retailers

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states can require retailers to collect and remit sales taxes on out-of-state purchases. The 5-to-4 decision reversed decades-old decisions that protected out-of-state vendors from sales tax obligations unless the vendor had a physical presence in the state.

Those earlier decisions, one half a century ago, the other a quarter-century ago, date back to a time when mail-order sales were relatively small and online sales were all but nonexistent. As the justices acknowledged Thursday, however, the court back then "could not have envisioned" a world in which e-commerce sales have revolutionized the dynamics of the national economy.

Writing for the five-justice majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the previous decisions "were flawed," and in the modern economy, they "create, rather than resolve market distortions." In today's context, he said, the physical presence rule is "an extraordinary imposition by the judiciary on the states' authority to collect taxes and perform critical public functions."

Furthermore, Kennedy said, the previous decisions effectively functioned as a "judicially-created tax shelter" for out-of-state retailers, and put local businesses at a "competitive disadvantage."

The problems with these earlier decisions, Kennedy said, were made "all the more egregious" by technological innovation. "The Internet's prevalence and power have changed the dynamics of the national economy," he wrote in the majority opinion.

[...] The decision was a victory for South Dakota, which, like some other states, has no income tax and relies on sales taxes to fund most of the state's services. Because of dramatic fall-offs in state sales taxes, the state in 2016 enacted a law to test the physical presence rule. Three large online vendors, Wayfair, Newegg, and Overstock, challenged the law in court, and lost on Thursday.

[...] "The chessboard just looks a lot different now," said Stephanie Martz, general counsel for the National Retail Federation, which includes 18,000 businesses large and small. "Now our members are going to be able to figure out how to construct their businesses without worrying about whether putting a distribution center on this side of a state line or that side of the state line will result in a different tax implication."

While the court made clear that the states do not have unlimited power to require sales tax collection, "The court blessed South Dakota's law," said Carl Davis, research director for the Institute of Taxation and Economic policy.

The law specifically protects small businesses from collecting sales taxes if they have less than $100,000 in sales or fewer than 200 transactions in the state. The state also provides sales tax collection software for free for any business that wants it, and using that software immunizes the business from audit liability. Perhaps most importantly, the state law does not permit sales tax collection for past purchases, meaning that businesses don't have to worry about a huge tax bill that they never anticipated.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Friday June 22 2018, @09:02PM (2 children)

    by VLM (445) on Friday June 22 2018, @09:02PM (#696963)

    Sales taxes are a tax levied on the shopper and must be collected by the merchant and paid to the shopper's home territory.

    Varies by state. Not where I live, not for IT/software type stuff. As a gross generalization where the trade happens is where the tax is paid. My state is even kinda forward thinking and has a cloud "good faith" exception written into the text of the law where if a client later moves software that I have a maintenance contract for from locale A at tax rate X to locale B at tax rate Y and doesn't tell me, as long as I keep paying tax rate X I am legally not in bad faith WRT dodging taxes until formally notified they moved (registered postal mail every time some vmware admin does a vmotion? Damn if know).

    On the other hand the same jerks are not so forward thinking about prewritten bundling laws. Any prewritten contamination means the whole product is contaminated into taxable prewritten status. If I write you custom software and provide it alone, thats tax-free. If I include a copy of prewritten FOSS "for your convenience" then that is explicitly under the law turning the whole project into providing prewritten software and I have to tax the whole product at full rate unless I do some hair raising invoicing. So its not like I live in a paradise.

    I'm pretty sure the universal legal phrase you're looking for is "Sourcing Rules"

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday June 23 2018, @02:54PM (1 child)

    by Immerman (3985) on Saturday June 23 2018, @02:54PM (#697201)

    I would think it would be easy enough to give the FOSS as a free gift - explicitly NOT bundled, because you are explicitly NOT selling it. Since it's FOSS you could even make it conveniently available even to non-customers, as further evidence that you are definitely not selling it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @05:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 23 2018, @05:44PM (#697264)

      I'm not sure that would fly if the FOSS stuff was an integral or important part of the system he's building for them.