And I HATE paying taxes... hopefully this levels the playing field for local businesses somewhat. That was a tough competitive disadvantage they had to deal with.
But absolutely: a fair tax system should apply to everyone.
Agree. It is yet to see how much it helps local Brick & Mortar retailers. Sure the tax discount was one advantage for shopping online, but I also like the fact that I don't have to leave my home and fight crowds. Unless they start to charge a "sit on your fat ass tax" for online shoppers, I'll continue to do most of my purchases online.
You may see online retailers building distribution centers in states to avoid that states sales tax.
A very fair tax ruling for brick and mortar retailers who were at a big disadvantage.
1. A plus for a strictly brick and mortar businesses.
2. For a small business that does some on line and/or mail order, the expense of complying with several thousand districts (in some states rates vary by county or municipality), of keeping track of what is and what isn't subject to sales tax (clothing is in NY and is not in NJ) and potentially filing sales tax returns in 40-45 states may make it unprofitable to do business in most of the country.
Those retailers still have a lot in their favor. They maintain physical presences in very cheap location and leverage cheap shipping to compete against these local shops, before applying economies of scale that allow them to offer much lower prices.
Giving a consumer a nearly 10% discount (close enough by NYC standards) almost eliminates any advantage the brick and mortar retailers would have for impulse buys.
1. A plus for a strictly brick and mortar businesses.
2. For a small business that does some on line and/or mail order, the expense of complying with several thousand districts (in some states rates vary by county or municipality), of keeping track of what is and what isn't subject to sales tax (clothing is in NY and is not in NJ) and potentially filing sales tax returns in 40-45 states may make it unprofitable to do business in most of the country.
I would imagine that for #2 you'd quickly see technical service offerings that integrate to existing e-commerce platforms to solve that problem. How the money would get from the retailer to the municipalities might be a challenge, but I highly doubt there won't be an easy to implement solution before too long.
RE: Amazon stock is only fractionally down on the news Â
Could be because investors saw this coming and/or because AMZN is now in so many other lines of business.
Amazon already collects sales tax on all their sales. The only negative impact to them is that 3rd party sellers on their site are now required to collect the tax. That MIGHT have a negative impact on the fees they collect from 3rd party sellers.
But I would bet this is a net win for Amazon. Their online competition that was not collecting tax is now forced to. Ebay sellers in particular.
1. A plus for a strictly brick and mortar businesses.
2. For a small business that does some on line and/or mail order, the expense of complying with several thousand districts (in some states rates vary by county or municipality), of keeping track of what is and what isn't subject to sales tax (clothing is in NY and is not in NJ) and potentially filing sales tax returns in 40-45 states may make it unprofitable to do business in most of the country.
I would imagine that for #2 you'd quickly see technical service offerings that integrate to existing e-commerce platforms to solve that problem. How the money would get from the retailer to the municipalities might be a challenge, but I highly doubt there won't be an easy to implement solution before too long.
But at what cost? Software to take care all of that will not be cheap, particularly if it involves quarterly tax filings in multiple states. There's also the time factor a small business would spend doing compliance work. If a small business is doing $50,000. in online business, a compliance cost of $5000. per year may eliminate the profit. Alternatively, I could see small businesses limiting the states they ship to (i.e. a NJ business limiting itself to NY, Conn. and Pa.) to mitigate the cost factor.
But at what cost? Software to take care all of that will not be cheap, particularly if it involves quarterly tax filings in multiple states. There's also the time factor a small business would spend doing compliance work. If a small business is doing $50,000. in online business, a compliance cost of $5000. per year may eliminate the profit. Alternatively, I could see small businesses limiting the states they ship to (i.e. a NJ business limiting itself to NY, Conn. and Pa.) to mitigate the cost factor.
Most online small businesses are already selling through a portal like ebay, etsy, Amazon, Walmart, etc. Those companies can easily handle the compliance since they already do it anyway.
Also the ruling requires states that want to participate to streamline compliance and provide free software.
"The Act applies only to sellers that deliver more than $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."
"The Act applies only to sellers that deliver more than $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."
That's the law passed by South Dakota. Other states can pass laws with different thresholds.
But at what cost? Software to take care all of that will not be cheap, particularly if it involves quarterly tax filings in multiple states. There's also the time factor a small business would spend doing compliance work. If a small business is doing $50,000. in online business, a compliance cost of $5000. per year may eliminate the profit. Alternatively, I could see small businesses limiting the states they ship to (i.e. a NJ business limiting itself to NY, Conn. and Pa.) to mitigate the cost factor.
Most online small businesses are already selling through a portal like ebay, etsy, Amazon, Walmart, etc. Those companies can easily handle the compliance since they already do it anyway.
Also the ruling requires states that want to participate to streamline compliance and provide free software.
And when they don't sell through the portal, they typically use the portal to collect payment.
In the end, it'll be another piece of the checkout mechanism for third party payment like Amazon Payments or PayPal. There won't be any heavy maintenance requirements, probably just a bit of administrative work at the end of the year.
RE: Is the rate based on where the purchaser lives Â
"The Act applies only to sellers that deliver more than $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."
That's the law passed by South Dakota. Other states can pass laws with different thresholds.
That’s true, but since SCOTUS cited that specifically, a state that passes a law without such thresholds would likely be shot down by lower courts citing this ruling. Besides, it’s the big guys they’re interested in.
So the selling state collects the sales tax levied by the buying state Â
"The Act applies only to sellers that deliver more than $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."
I have to wonder how this effects a small time Ebay seller.
Are they going to have to find out exactly what rate is right? Then cut a check to that state, city or county?
RE: So the selling state collects the sales tax levied by the buying state Â
Is that how it works?
So the selling entity has to keep track of the other 49 states sales tax policies including changes thereof.
No. The business making the sale charges the customer the tax rate that applies in the customer’s state. The business then remits the tax to the customer’s state.
"The Act applies only to sellers that deliver more than $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."
That's the law passed by South Dakota. Other states can pass laws with different thresholds.
That’s true, but since SCOTUS cited that specifically, a state that passes a law without such thresholds would likely be shot down by lower courts citing this ruling. Besides, it’s the big guys they’re interested in.
They HAD to cite that specifically because that was the law being challenged. Unless there is language in the opinion that saying it's constitutional because of the $100,000 and 200 customer thresholds then it does not prevent other states from passing laws with lower thresholds. That could be challenged, but it would result in another case possibly reaching the USSC.
I have to wonder how this effects a small time Ebay seller.
Are they going to have to find out exactly what rate is right? Then cut a check to that state, city or county?
I am certain eBay will handle all this for their sellers. Amazon already has this in place for its 3rd party marketplace sellers.
National sales tax. Why change from state to state
Because the revenues go to the states. I'm not sure that a federal law mandating what tax rate a state could charge would be constitutional. And the LAST thing we need is a federal sales tax on top of the state sales taxes.
of figuring out sales tax and getting that money to 50 states seems excessive. It may open the door for another filthy rich person to start a new corporation: Tax Pal!
of figuring out sales tax and getting that money to 50 states seems excessive. It may open the door for another filthy rich person to start a new corporation: Tax Pal!
of figuring out sales tax and getting that money to 50 states seems excessive. It may open the door for another filthy rich person to start a new corporation: Tax Pal!
They HAD to cite that specifically because that was the law being challenged. Unless there is language in the opinion that saying it's constitutional because of the $100,000 and 200 customer thresholds then it does not prevent other states from passing laws with lower thresholds. That could be challenged, but it would result in another case possibly reaching the USSC.
They cited that language specifically in their opinion as one of the reasons for upholding the law. They also added:
“This quantity of business could not have occurred unless the seller availed itself of the sub stantial privilege of carrying on business in South Dakota.”
And also:
“South Dakota’s tax system includes several features that appear designed to prevent discrimination against or undue burdens upon interstate commerce. First, the Act applies a safe harbor to those who transact only limited business in South Dakota.”
So I’m pretty certain lower courts would shoot down a state law that didn’t provide similar limitations. And states have little reason to do otherwise. They want the big money fromWayfair, Overstock, eBay, etc. They don’t care about collecting $4.80 from some guy in his garage,
They HAD to cite that specifically because that was the law being challenged. Unless there is language in the opinion that saying it's constitutional because of the $100,000 and 200 customer thresholds then it does not prevent other states from passing laws with lower thresholds. That could be challenged, but it would result in another case possibly reaching the USSC.
They cited that language specifically in their opinion as one of the reasons for upholding the law. They also added:
“This quantity of business could not have occurred unless the seller availed itself of the sub stantial privilege of carrying on business in South Dakota.”
And also:
“South Dakota’s tax system includes several features that appear designed to prevent discrimination against or undue burdens upon interstate commerce. First, the Act applies a safe harbor to those who transact only limited business in South Dakota.”
So I’m pretty certain lower courts would shoot down a state law that didn’t provide similar limitations. And states have little reason to do otherwise. They want the big money fromWayfair, Overstock, eBay, etc. They don’t care about collecting $4.80 from some guy in his garage,
So what constitutes substantial privilege? We know $100k does, but how much lower passes muster?
And yes, the states won't care about $4.80 from some guy in his garage. However pardon my cynicism, but I could states as they become increasingly desperate for revenue auditing outfits much smaller than Overstock and Wayfair, in fact under $100k, to pick up revenue in $2k and $3k increments. After all, the owners don't vote in their states.
This would be the time that they would step in and pass a law normalizing the rules for out of state sales tax collections.
That's what has to be done to avoid the problem of forcing very small businesses of having to comply with thousands of different state and local tax laws. Doing so is cost prohibitive. Time for Congress to do something.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Also, this from the ruling Â
So what constitutes substantial privilege? We know $100k does, but how much lower passes muster?
And yes, the states won't care about $4.80 from some guy in his garage. However pardon my cynicism, but I could states as they become increasingly desperate for revenue auditing outfits much smaller than Overstock and Wayfair, in fact under $100k, to pick up revenue in $2k and $3k increments. After all, the owners don't vote in their states.
Other states can try what they like, but it’s unlikely to stick if it doesn’t follow the parameters of this ruling. Several states by the way have already passed laws in the South Dakota model with the same limits, putting them in abeyance pending the outcome of this case.
RE: RE: If we had a functioning federal government Â
That's what has to be done to avoid the problem of forcing very small businesses of having to comply with thousands of different state and local tax laws. Doing so is cost prohibitive. Time for Congress to do something.
More like 46. The ruling specifically noted South Dakota’s adherence to the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, which requires member states to have a single uniform rate that is remitted to a single state agency. Currently 23 states are members.
RE: RE: RE: If we had a functioning federal government Â
That's what has to be done to avoid the problem of forcing very small businesses of having to comply with thousands of different state and local tax laws. Doing so is cost prohibitive. Time for Congress to do something.
More like 46. The ruling specifically noted South Dakota’s adherence to the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, which requires member states to have a single uniform rate that is remitted to a single state agency. Currently 23 states are members.
That makes New York, with it's varied rates, very interesting.
DeBlasio vs. Cuomo "Two men enter, one man leaves"
1. A plus for a strictly brick and mortar businesses.
2. For a small business that does some on line and/or mail order, the expense of complying with several thousand districts (in some states rates vary by county or municipality), of keeping track of what is and what isn't subject to sales tax (clothing is in NY and is not in NJ) and potentially filing sales tax returns in 40-45 states may make it unprofitable to do business in most of the country.
People selling on Etsy and EBay just took a hard, un-lubed one in the ass. This favors the largest of the on-line sellers such as WalMart, Amazon, etc. Small independents are fucked.
1. A plus for a strictly brick and mortar businesses.
2. For a small business that does some on line and/or mail order, the expense of complying with several thousand districts (in some states rates vary by county or municipality), of keeping track of what is and what isn't subject to sales tax (clothing is in NY and is not in NJ) and potentially filing sales tax returns in 40-45 states may make it unprofitable to do business in most of the country.
People selling on Etsy and EBay just took a hard, un-lubed one in the ass. This favors the largest of the on-line sellers such as WalMart, Amazon, etc. Small independents are fucked.
1. A plus for a strictly brick and mortar businesses.
2. For a small business that does some on line and/or mail order, the expense of complying with several thousand districts (in some states rates vary by county or municipality), of keeping track of what is and what isn't subject to sales tax (clothing is in NY and is not in NJ) and potentially filing sales tax returns in 40-45 states may make it unprofitable to do business in most of the country.
People selling on Etsy and EBay just took a hard, un-lubed one in the ass. This favors the largest of the on-line sellers such as WalMart, Amazon, etc. Small independents are fucked.
That's the goal.
Actually, the goal was for the states to capture another revenue source.
1. A plus for a strictly brick and mortar businesses.
2. For a small business that does some on line and/or mail order, the expense of complying with several thousand districts (in some states rates vary by county or municipality), of keeping track of what is and what isn't subject to sales tax (clothing is in NY and is not in NJ) and potentially filing sales tax returns in 40-45 states may make it unprofitable to do business in most of the country.
People selling on Etsy and EBay just took a hard, un-lubed one in the ass. This favors the largest of the on-line sellers such as WalMart, Amazon, etc. Small independents are fucked.
I have to believe there are certain thresholds that will have to be met before a seller is obligated to collect/remit sales tax. The seller who decides to sell a few items collecting dust certainly can't be expected to adhere to the decision.
I have to believe there are certain thresholds that will have to be met before a seller is obligated to collect/remit sales tax. The seller who decides to sell a few items collecting dust certainly can't be expected to adhere to the decision.
As I noted above, South Dakota’s law only requires sellers to collect and remit sales tax if they have over $100K in sales or 200 transactions to state residents. Several other states are preparing to enact laws in this model.
A very fair tax ruling for brick and mortar retailers who were at a big disadvantage.
I don't think it hurts Amazon or any online vendor. Not a huge number of buying decisions will be impacted by this.
2. For a small business that does some on line and/or mail order, the expense of complying with several thousand districts (in some states rates vary by county or municipality), of keeping track of what is and what isn't subject to sales tax (clothing is in NY and is not in NJ) and potentially filing sales tax returns in 40-45 states may make it unprofitable to do business in most of the country.
Giving a consumer a nearly 10% discount (close enough by NYC standards) almost eliminates any advantage the brick and mortar retailers would have for impulse buys.
2. For a small business that does some on line and/or mail order, the expense of complying with several thousand districts (in some states rates vary by county or municipality), of keeping track of what is and what isn't subject to sales tax (clothing is in NY and is not in NJ) and potentially filing sales tax returns in 40-45 states may make it unprofitable to do business in most of the country.
I would imagine that for #2 you'd quickly see technical service offerings that integrate to existing e-commerce platforms to solve that problem. How the money would get from the retailer to the municipalities might be a challenge, but I highly doubt there won't be an easy to implement solution before too long.
Amazon already collects sales tax on all their sales. The only negative impact to them is that 3rd party sellers on their site are now required to collect the tax. That MIGHT have a negative impact on the fees they collect from 3rd party sellers.
But I would bet this is a net win for Amazon. Their online competition that was not collecting tax is now forced to. Ebay sellers in particular.
Quote:
1. A plus for a strictly brick and mortar businesses.
2. For a small business that does some on line and/or mail order, the expense of complying with several thousand districts (in some states rates vary by county or municipality), of keeping track of what is and what isn't subject to sales tax (clothing is in NY and is not in NJ) and potentially filing sales tax returns in 40-45 states may make it unprofitable to do business in most of the country.
I would imagine that for #2 you'd quickly see technical service offerings that integrate to existing e-commerce platforms to solve that problem. How the money would get from the retailer to the municipalities might be a challenge, but I highly doubt there won't be an easy to implement solution before too long.
But at what cost? Software to take care all of that will not be cheap, particularly if it involves quarterly tax filings in multiple states. There's also the time factor a small business would spend doing compliance work. If a small business is doing $50,000. in online business, a compliance cost of $5000. per year may eliminate the profit. Alternatively, I could see small businesses limiting the states they ship to (i.e. a NJ business limiting itself to NY, Conn. and Pa.) to mitigate the cost factor.
But at what cost? Software to take care all of that will not be cheap, particularly if it involves quarterly tax filings in multiple states. There's also the time factor a small business would spend doing compliance work. If a small business is doing $50,000. in online business, a compliance cost of $5000. per year may eliminate the profit. Alternatively, I could see small businesses limiting the states they ship to (i.e. a NJ business limiting itself to NY, Conn. and Pa.) to mitigate the cost factor.
Most online small businesses are already selling through a portal like ebay, etsy, Amazon, Walmart, etc. Those companies can easily handle the compliance since they already do it anyway.
Also the ruling requires states that want to participate to streamline compliance and provide free software.
If you’re a brick and mortar small business, the old system fucked you much more.
"The Act applies only to sellers that deliver more than $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."
"The Act applies only to sellers that deliver more than $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."
That's the law passed by South Dakota. Other states can pass laws with different thresholds.
Quote:
But at what cost? Software to take care all of that will not be cheap, particularly if it involves quarterly tax filings in multiple states. There's also the time factor a small business would spend doing compliance work. If a small business is doing $50,000. in online business, a compliance cost of $5000. per year may eliminate the profit. Alternatively, I could see small businesses limiting the states they ship to (i.e. a NJ business limiting itself to NY, Conn. and Pa.) to mitigate the cost factor.
Most online small businesses are already selling through a portal like ebay, etsy, Amazon, Walmart, etc. Those companies can easily handle the compliance since they already do it anyway.
Also the ruling requires states that want to participate to streamline compliance and provide free software.
And when they don't sell through the portal, they typically use the portal to collect payment.
In the end, it'll be another piece of the checkout mechanism for third party payment like Amazon Payments or PayPal. There won't be any heavy maintenance requirements, probably just a bit of administrative work at the end of the year.
Where the purchaser lives.
I believe where the purchaser lives
Quote:
"The Act applies only to sellers that deliver more than $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."
That's the law passed by South Dakota. Other states can pass laws with different thresholds.
That’s true, but since SCOTUS cited that specifically, a state that passes a law without such thresholds would likely be shot down by lower courts citing this ruling. Besides, it’s the big guys they’re interested in.
So the selling entity has to keep track of the other 49 states sales tax policies including changes thereof.
"The Act applies only to sellers that deliver more than $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."
I have to wonder how this effects a small time Ebay seller.
Are they going to have to find out exactly what rate is right? Then cut a check to that state, city or county?
So the selling entity has to keep track of the other 49 states sales tax policies including changes thereof.
No. The business making the sale charges the customer the tax rate that applies in the customer’s state. The business then remits the tax to the customer’s state.
Quote:
In comment 13996166 Jim in Fairfax said:
Quote:
"The Act applies only to sellers that deliver more than $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."
That's the law passed by South Dakota. Other states can pass laws with different thresholds.
That’s true, but since SCOTUS cited that specifically, a state that passes a law without such thresholds would likely be shot down by lower courts citing this ruling. Besides, it’s the big guys they’re interested in.
They HAD to cite that specifically because that was the law being challenged. Unless there is language in the opinion that saying it's constitutional because of the $100,000 and 200 customer thresholds then it does not prevent other states from passing laws with lower thresholds. That could be challenged, but it would result in another case possibly reaching the USSC.
I have to wonder how this effects a small time Ebay seller.
Are they going to have to find out exactly what rate is right? Then cut a check to that state, city or county?
I am certain eBay will handle all this for their sellers. Amazon already has this in place for its 3rd party marketplace sellers.
Because the revenues go to the states. I'm not sure that a federal law mandating what tax rate a state could charge would be constitutional. And the LAST thing we need is a federal sales tax on top of the state sales taxes.
I am certain eBay will handle all this for their sellers. Amazon already has this in place for its 3rd party marketplace sellers.
Thanks, Jim.
Will Tax Pal handle the quarterly tax returns?
Quote:
of figuring out sales tax and getting that money to 50 states seems excessive. It may open the door for another filthy rich person to start a new corporation: Tax Pal!
Will Tax Pal handle the quarterly tax returns?
For a nominal fee.
They HAD to cite that specifically because that was the law being challenged. Unless there is language in the opinion that saying it's constitutional because of the $100,000 and 200 customer thresholds then it does not prevent other states from passing laws with lower thresholds. That could be challenged, but it would result in another case possibly reaching the USSC.
They cited that language specifically in their opinion as one of the reasons for upholding the law. They also added:
“This quantity of business could not have occurred unless the seller availed itself of the sub stantial privilege of carrying on business in South Dakota.”
And also:
“South Dakota’s tax system includes several features that appear designed to prevent discrimination against or undue burdens upon interstate commerce. First, the Act applies a safe harbor to those who transact only limited business in South Dakota.”
So I’m pretty certain lower courts would shoot down a state law that didn’t provide similar limitations. And states have little reason to do otherwise. They want the big money fromWayfair, Overstock, eBay, etc. They don’t care about collecting $4.80 from some guy in his garage,
Quote:
They HAD to cite that specifically because that was the law being challenged. Unless there is language in the opinion that saying it's constitutional because of the $100,000 and 200 customer thresholds then it does not prevent other states from passing laws with lower thresholds. That could be challenged, but it would result in another case possibly reaching the USSC.
They cited that language specifically in their opinion as one of the reasons for upholding the law. They also added:
“This quantity of business could not have occurred unless the seller availed itself of the sub stantial privilege of carrying on business in South Dakota.”
And also:
“South Dakota’s tax system includes several features that appear designed to prevent discrimination against or undue burdens upon interstate commerce. First, the Act applies a safe harbor to those who transact only limited business in South Dakota.”
So I’m pretty certain lower courts would shoot down a state law that didn’t provide similar limitations. And states have little reason to do otherwise. They want the big money fromWayfair, Overstock, eBay, etc. They don’t care about collecting $4.80 from some guy in his garage,
So what constitutes substantial privilege? We know $100k does, but how much lower passes muster?
And yes, the states won't care about $4.80 from some guy in his garage. However pardon my cynicism, but I could states as they become increasingly desperate for revenue auditing outfits much smaller than Overstock and Wayfair, in fact under $100k, to pick up revenue in $2k and $3k increments. After all, the owners don't vote in their states.
That's what has to be done to avoid the problem of forcing very small businesses of having to comply with thousands of different state and local tax laws. Doing so is cost prohibitive. Time for Congress to do something.
So what constitutes substantial privilege? We know $100k does, but how much lower passes muster?
And yes, the states won't care about $4.80 from some guy in his garage. However pardon my cynicism, but I could states as they become increasingly desperate for revenue auditing outfits much smaller than Overstock and Wayfair, in fact under $100k, to pick up revenue in $2k and $3k increments. After all, the owners don't vote in their states.
Other states can try what they like, but it’s unlikely to stick if it doesn’t follow the parameters of this ruling. Several states by the way have already passed laws in the South Dakota model with the same limits, putting them in abeyance pending the outcome of this case.
That's what has to be done to avoid the problem of forcing very small businesses of having to comply with thousands of different state and local tax laws. Doing so is cost prohibitive. Time for Congress to do something.
More like 46. The ruling specifically noted South Dakota’s adherence to the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, which requires member states to have a single uniform rate that is remitted to a single state agency. Currently 23 states are members.
Quote:
That's what has to be done to avoid the problem of forcing very small businesses of having to comply with thousands of different state and local tax laws. Doing so is cost prohibitive. Time for Congress to do something.
More like 46. The ruling specifically noted South Dakota’s adherence to the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, which requires member states to have a single uniform rate that is remitted to a single state agency. Currently 23 states are members.
That makes New York, with it's varied rates, very interesting.
DeBlasio vs. Cuomo "Two men enter, one man leaves"
2. For a small business that does some on line and/or mail order, the expense of complying with several thousand districts (in some states rates vary by county or municipality), of keeping track of what is and what isn't subject to sales tax (clothing is in NY and is not in NJ) and potentially filing sales tax returns in 40-45 states may make it unprofitable to do business in most of the country.
People selling on Etsy and EBay just took a hard, un-lubed one in the ass. This favors the largest of the on-line sellers such as WalMart, Amazon, etc. Small independents are fucked.
Quote:
1. A plus for a strictly brick and mortar businesses.
2. For a small business that does some on line and/or mail order, the expense of complying with several thousand districts (in some states rates vary by county or municipality), of keeping track of what is and what isn't subject to sales tax (clothing is in NY and is not in NJ) and potentially filing sales tax returns in 40-45 states may make it unprofitable to do business in most of the country.
People selling on Etsy and EBay just took a hard, un-lubed one in the ass. This favors the largest of the on-line sellers such as WalMart, Amazon, etc. Small independents are fucked.
That's the goal.
Quote:
In comment 13996103 njm said:
Quote:
1. A plus for a strictly brick and mortar businesses.
2. For a small business that does some on line and/or mail order, the expense of complying with several thousand districts (in some states rates vary by county or municipality), of keeping track of what is and what isn't subject to sales tax (clothing is in NY and is not in NJ) and potentially filing sales tax returns in 40-45 states may make it unprofitable to do business in most of the country.
People selling on Etsy and EBay just took a hard, un-lubed one in the ass. This favors the largest of the on-line sellers such as WalMart, Amazon, etc. Small independents are fucked.
That's the goal.
Actually, the goal was for the states to capture another revenue source.
Quote:
1. A plus for a strictly brick and mortar businesses.
2. For a small business that does some on line and/or mail order, the expense of complying with several thousand districts (in some states rates vary by county or municipality), of keeping track of what is and what isn't subject to sales tax (clothing is in NY and is not in NJ) and potentially filing sales tax returns in 40-45 states may make it unprofitable to do business in most of the country.
People selling on Etsy and EBay just took a hard, un-lubed one in the ass. This favors the largest of the on-line sellers such as WalMart, Amazon, etc. Small independents are fucked.
I have to believe there are certain thresholds that will have to be met before a seller is obligated to collect/remit sales tax. The seller who decides to sell a few items collecting dust certainly can't be expected to adhere to the decision.
I have to believe there are certain thresholds that will have to be met before a seller is obligated to collect/remit sales tax. The seller who decides to sell a few items collecting dust certainly can't be expected to adhere to the decision.
As I noted above, South Dakota’s law only requires sellers to collect and remit sales tax if they have over $100K in sales or 200 transactions to state residents. Several other states are preparing to enact laws in this model.