Hous Repblicns Wrong On Intrnet Sales Tax Bill!

[Quantum Windbag]

The marketing software will do it automatically. If you think there is going to be a little old lady with a pencil and thick book of tax tables that will manually be calculating taxes for each purchase you are incorrect. The software will take the delivery address, access the table for that state and apply the correct amount. The law even exempts the seller from liability of the table the states provides calculates the incorrect tax.

You just said the magic words, marketing software. The only place you can get software that is capable of handling multiple taxing jurisdictions is through Amazon, and they have a patent on it. This will help Amazon get richer, which is why they suddenly think it is a good idea.

By the way, how long do you think states will wait before they argue that the exemption from errors places an unfair burden on local businesses that are subject to the fines and penalties if they make a mistake, even if it isn't their fault? Isn't cronyism, protectionism, and isolationism what got this whole things started in the first place?

Wrong. Let's say there is a company ""WW Collectables" and I sell through E-bay. E-bay provides the interface, but the $1,000,000 is based on the tax forms I submit for WW Collectables the previous year. If my Brick and Mortar business does $5,000,000 in sales and $500,000 in online sales, I need not collect the tax. On the other hand if my internet sales the previous year were $2,000,000 then yes I would.

Ebay is not the seller, the individual business is. Ebay is the portal. If you are an individual doing sales they you have an individual account. If you are a business you use a business plan, pay their fees, and conduct your business.

How can you know so much and say so little?

Do you understand just how little $1 million in annual sales is?

You should really discuss what the law says and does instead of making stuff up.


>>>>>

Yep, I am the one making shit up.

Care to point out which brick and mortar stores are required to collect taxes for out of state purchases?

 

[Immanuel]

Personally, I have no problem paying the additional tax on items I purchase. If I can't afford the extra 7.5% on my purchase, I should not be buying the item in the first place.

Logistically, this bill is a frigging nightmare for bookkeepers and accountants nationwide. I wonder if Jim has ever had to file a sales tax return. Now, these people are asking that a company keep records on how much is sold in each state, how much sales tax is collected and how to distribute said taxes to each county and state in the country? Talk about a frigging nightmare and we have not even thought about all the different rules and regulations each state has or will develop in the future. If I collect sales tax for California and my business is in Florida, I would have to keep track of all the rules in California, I would have to file a return in California (and 25 years ago when I lived there, California required you to report sales for each and every county not sure it is still the same) and every other state I did business in... one single time. I would have to apply for a permit for each state... Lord the nightmare that would be! I would need to keep records on which customers were sales tax exempt in which states. Lord what a frigging nightmare!

I, too, hope this bill dies a terrible terrible death.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From the text of the law as a requirement:

"(2) implements each of the following minimum simplification requirements:

(A) Provide--

(i) a single entity within the State responsible for all State and local sales and use tax administration, return processing, and audits for remote sales sourced to the State;

(ii) a single audit of a remote seller for all State and local taxing jurisdictions within that State; and

(iii) a single sales and use tax return to be used by remote sellers to be filed with the single entity responsible for tax administration."

Text of S. 743: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 (Passed the Senate (Engrossed) version) - GovTrack.us​

Out of state retailers will not have to deal with local tax authorities.



>>>>

Yes, that is what the state has to do. Want to point to the part where the company can pretend there is only one sales tax for the entire state?

Please point to where I said there was only one sales tax for the entire state please.

I said their would be one tax collection agency that out of state resellers would be interfacing with, not that there would be one tax rate.

The states, to participate in the program, will be required to have a single tax agency to interface with and they will supply the software to facilitate tax calculations and filing for returns. The tax will be calculated based on the delivery access and the software will lookup the correct rate based on tables supplied by the state.

Stop posting before you look like a complete idiot.

Maybe you should respond to what I say instead of making shit up, like "one tax rate for an entire state" - something I never said or implied.

By the way, why are you the idiot defending the idiot OP who can't even write?

No defending the OP, just discussing the law. From an emotional level I don't like it. That doesn't preclude a logical discussion of what the law actually says and does as opposed to strawman talking points.



>>>>

Where did you say that? Seriously?

When someone points out that a business is going to be responsible for collecting taxes for thousands of different agencies, and you reply that the law requires states to set up a single portal, what the fuck do you think it means?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

On this we agree, it is not about "fairness", it's about states not receiving taxes that are already on the books. Current the collection of sales or use taxes which have been on the books for years has been on the "honor system" for most things. As interstate commerce has grown because of the internet a lot of sales tax revenue is now going to online sales. The individuals were required (in many cases) to report and pay the appropriate tax, but they don't.

In VA there is a line item on our state tax returns for the remittance of sales tax on out of state purchases. Wanna bet how often it's used?

The states are trying to close the loophole so taxes that aren't being collected after the fact are shifted to tax collection at the time of sale. Not supprising really.


****************************


Remember last year when we were running against the Dem's, their position was increase rates to increase revenue. Our (Republican plan) was to maintain rates and cut spending and to increase revenues be closing loopholes. Well, now it's happening and people are whining because a loophole is being closed. Surprising isn't it?



>>>>

I have one thing to say about that, tough fucking shit.

By the way, my plan is to cut spending then talk about taxes.

Stop saying we, it makes you look like you are Obama.

Your individual plan is irrelevant.

We, as in Republicans. Last year when the Dem's were talking about raising tax rates to raise revenues with no cuts in spending - "we" (Republicans) said that our plan was reduce spending, maintain tax rates flate AND close tax loopholes to generate revenue. Go back and research the election from last year, that was our plan.

This is closing a tax loophole which was the basis for the SCOTUS decision in Quill v. North Dakota.


>>>>

You are the one that said we, so I pointed out that you and that mouse you keep in your pocket do not speak for me.

By the way, this is not a loophiole because every single business in the country gets to do the same thing. I can walk into any store in California, talk to the staff and tell them that I am buying something to ship home to Texas, and I will get it without paying CA sales taxes. Is that a loophole, or are you just really confused because you are actually a Democrat who think loophole means something you do not like?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not "new revenue", it's revenue that is currently owed. The difference is that it will be collected at the time of sale instead of using the honor system. Imagine if you will that a State said, sales tax will not be collected by merchants any longer. All citizens are expected to simply remit any tax owed on items purchased by writing a check and sending it to the states taxing authority on a monthly basis. Think that would work well?

Those states are not treated unfairly, they choose a different revenue stream (other than sales transactions). They are free to maintain those systems if it works for them. They can also implement a sales tax and comply with the interstate commerce requirements and join the other 45. They choice is theirs.



>>>>

They aren't getting it now, so that makes it new, despite your idiotic attempt to claim that it ain't fair.

Again with the strawman, I've said the naming of the bill is a smoke screen with the whole "fairness" aspect. The reality is this is about revenue.

The taxes are not new, they've been around for years. The shift though is from an "honor system" after the fact method to a font end time of sale method - you know, just like the one used by B&M stores.



>>>>

The revenue is new.
The revenue is new.
The revenue is new.
The revenue is new.
The revenue is new.

Now that we have got that drilled into your brain perhaps we can actually have an intelligent conversation about this.

 

[Immanuel]

Link is behind a plan that would eliminate or consolidate some of Illinois' nearly 7,000 taxing authorities. Illinois leads the nation with the number of taxing bodies. Pennsylvania is No. 2 on that list with about 4,900 taxing districts, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Just from 2 states.
Link: Too many taxing authorities in Illinois | Evanston Now

From the text of the law as a requirement:

"(2) implements each of the following minimum simplification requirements:

(A) Provide--

(i) a single entity within the State responsible for all State and local sales and use tax administration, return processing, and audits for remote sales sourced to the State;

(ii) a single audit of a remote seller for all State and local taxing jurisdictions within that State; and

(iii) a single sales and use tax return to be used by remote sellers to be filed with the single entity responsible for tax administration."

Text of S. 743: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 (Passed the Senate (Engrossed) version) - GovTrack.us​

Out of state retailers will not have to deal with local tax authorities.



>>>>

Out of state retailers will not have to deal with local tax authorities.

No, but they would potentially have to deal with 50 (57 by Obama's count) different auditing agents. I've been through two state sales tax audits. They cost time and money even if the company has been found in compliance. Now they could be audited 50 times a year.

Would they be responsible to travel to the state for the privilege of being audited or would the state be gracious enough to contract with auditors in various locations? I would not count on the "OR".

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm a database guy by trade, I work with HR and not retail, but the fundamental concepts remain the same.

Shopping Cart software already has to include tax calculations for the state the seller is in. When a customer makes an online purchase, it looks up the address of delivery, if the state of the seller and the purchaser are the same - tax is calculated. If they are not the same, then currently no tax is calculated. For sites with over a $1,000,000 in sales - ya, an upgrade will be patched into the database. The States are required to provide the underlying tables free to the business community. In the future when the address is looked up, it will access the table for that address in that state and compute the tax and return it to the cart for display. The law also requires that the software prepare the returns for electronic filing.

I have no disagreement with the concept of the businesses getting some type of compensation for the additional work. I was talking to a business person on another board and he was saying that by filing timely returns that they get discount on the total tax owed. Such a discount in essence paid the company because they were allowed to keep a percentage of the taxes collected which covered expense.


>>>>

I've never heard of anyone getting a % back. There is usually a very small amount that you get to keep if you pay on time. Of course if you have to do 45 of them the paying on time part will be very difficult.

Is there any measures in the bill by state so you don't have to do a form say if you sell only $100 to that state? Or if you have any sales in that state you have to do the whole form as if you had sold say $100,000?

The law says business with less than $1,000,000 in sales are exempt. The law does not go into interaction limits for individual states.

However it does require that the software handle the preparation of the required filings. Every state that I know of has online remittance of taxes. Paying them on time will actually be pretty easy. The software handles the filing for the specified period, remittance is made online electronically.


>>>>

Have you ever run a business? Do you understand that paying taxes on time is not something that happens by magic? Are you aware that businesses, in theory, actually have to maintain collected taxes in a separate account, while, in reality, they dump all deposits into a single account and figure it out later? What happens if the bank is late transferring fund because of a computer glitch, who pays for that? I once had to argue with two separate taxing agencies for 3 years because they did not properly log my payment to them, even though I had proof I paid. They actually slapped a lien notice on my door, and the IRS showed up wanting to know why I claimed a deduction for a payment I never made.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is the million dollars of out of state sales just for US sales? So if a company sells say $600k to other states , but $500k internationally would they qualify?

Aren't we giving another advantage to China companies? There are a lot that ship direct from overseas into the states. I assume they won't be charging any sales tax.

The million dollar mark is determined by United States income tax filing, which means the company has a presence in the United States.

So if you buy a laptop from Dell and it ships from Taiwan, Dell is a US company and the tax would be charged.

If a company is located in Brazil and not incorporated in the United States, then their would be no sales tax. However there may/will be tariffs, Customs fees, and higher international shipping rates - if you can do that for less than the sales tax rate. Go for it.


>>>>

As usual, you are wrong.

Just because a company ships to the US does not mean they have a presence here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If there is more than one rate per state most shopping carts can't do it. A new website would be a huge expense.

The shopping cart software already exists. You realize that instate sellers already have to deal with different tax rates based on delivery address within a state right?

Patching a Point-of-Sale system to update something is not "creating a new website". Online sellers are already required to collect tax, the interface is the same - no new site required. The underlying software will just need an upgrade to access out of state tables that the participating state is required to supply.



>>>>

Actually the state I'm familiar with you charge sales tax based on the business location, not the customer. That is the same as if you go in a store, you don't travel with your rate. The carts I know of charge by state, not zip.

That is the way it works for every in state business, yet out of state business suddenly have to figure out where you love and take taxes based on that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The marketing software will do it automatically. If you think there is going to be a little old lady with a pencil and thick book of tax tables that will manually be calculating taxes for each purchase you are incorrect. The software will take the delivery address, access the table for that state and apply the correct amount. The law even exempts the seller from liability of the table the states provides calculates the incorrect tax.

You just said the magic words, marketing software. The only place you can get software that is capable of handling multiple taxing jurisdictions is through Amazon, and they have a patent on it. This will help Amazon get richer, which is why they suddenly think it is a good idea.

Amazon dosen't have a patent on web marketing software for the purchase of goods, there are numerous suppliers of such software. The patent you are referring to was a patent on transferring digital content between users for a limited amount of time, software they implemented in their Kindle so that books could be "loaned" from one user to another.

Wrong. Let's say there is a company ""WW Collectables" and I sell through E-bay. E-bay provides the interface, but the $1,000,000 is based on the tax forms I submit for WW Collectables the previous year. If my Brick and Mortar business does $5,000,000 in sales and $500,000 in online sales, I need not collect the tax. On the other hand if my internet sales the previous year were $2,000,000 then yes I would.

Ebay is not the seller, the individual business is. Ebay is the portal. If you are an individual doing sales they you have an individual account. If you are a business you use a business plan, pay their fees, and conduct your business.

How can you know so much and say so little?

When you are right, it doesn't take a lot of space.

Do you understand just how little $1 million in annual sales is?

Yes, I think the limit is to low. What's that got to do with a discussion of what the law actually says? (No need to answer, that was a rhetorical question, the answer is nothing.)

You should really discuss what the law says and does instead of making stuff up.


>>>>>

Yep, I am the one making shit up.

Care to point out which brick and mortar stores are required to collect taxes for out of state purchases?

None, Brick & Mortar stores collect sales tax at the location of sale - which in that case is the same for the retailer and the purchaser.

E-commerce retailers will be required to also collect sales tax at the location of sale, which is the consumers location.



>>>>

 

[Anitabeme]

This bill in Congress requiring internet companies to collect state sales taxes on merchandise they sell through the internet should have sailed through to enactment. Instead, the bill which passed the Senate is hung-up in the House and you guessed it right the obstacle is the House Republicans. The House Republicans if asked will give you all kinds of baloney why they cannot vote in favor of the bill like this requirement that internet company's collect out of state sales taxes for orders on deliveries out of state is too onerous on small internet businesses. The truth of the matter on why the Republicans won't support this bill is that collectively the Republican caucus has sold their soul to the business lobby and the business lobby doesn't want this sales tax obligation because it will increase internet customers bills on internet purchases and thereby cause these customers to purchase less!



Somebody needs to tell House Republicans that their job is to do the right thing when it comes to voting on bills and it is a no brainer that the right thing is that this bill become law. Presently, out of state internet companies have an advantage over in-state retailers in a state because they don't collect a state sales tax for internet orders where the delivery is in-state and there is no valid reasoning for this advantage. Further, this is unfair to the state in question for if a company sells an item of merchandise to a customer where the customer takes possession of the merchandise in state X it doesn't matter where the order was made whether it was made in-person, over the phone, by mail, by internet inside or outside state X because it is a sale in state X that is where the customer takes possession of the merchandise. States have a right to tax sales within their state this is a simple matter of states rights. The Republican criticism that this is too onerous on small internet companies who will have the task of applying all the states in America different sales tax schemes give me a break the Republicans have got to be kidding with this one were not talking about applying the Federal income tax code here these are state sales tax standards hundreds of millions of people across America understand these standards. With many states really hard up for revenue making education cuts, making cuts in the criminal justice system, etc. House Republicans where is your brains here why incur the anger of a lot of people who will benefit from states sales tax money for an indefensible position from a justice standpoint! Come to think of it one can expect this behavior by many rank and file House Republican who won't support this legislation because their track record indicates clearly their under the control of the business lobby in America, they have sold their soul to this lobby unfortunately. But House Speaker John Boehner coming out saying he is not sure he can support the Senate bill here, where is your courage John? Speaker Boehner you're supposed to be a first rate representative doing the right thing for the American people no matter who is for or against the issue! John if you make the effort to hear past the clanging of chains which shackle your caucus' colleagues you'll hear grass roots America proclaiming loudly and clearly the message "John Grow A Spine And Pass This Legislation"!!!

WTF is wrong with you? Why do you want more taxes? Feel free to give your whole paycheck to the goddamned whores in government if you want to. Just leave us alone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The shopping cart software already exists. You realize that instate sellers already have to deal with different tax rates based on delivery address within a state right?

Patching a Point-of-Sale system to update something is not "creating a new website". Online sellers are already required to collect tax, the interface is the same - no new site required. The underlying software will just need an upgrade to access out of state tables that the participating state is required to supply.



>>>>

Actually the state I'm familiar with you charge sales tax based on the business location, not the customer. That is the same as if you go in a store, you don't travel with your rate. The carts I know of charge by state, not zip.

I just picked a state at random: Texas. From their site.

"How much is sales tax?

The current state sales tax rate on taxable items delivered into Texas is 6.25 percent. Local sales and use taxes may be due depending on where you receive orders and where the products are delivered. You should not collect more than 2 percent local tax on any one transaction. To find out the proper rate for any jurisdiction, use our tax rate search engine. More information on local sales and use taxes is online at Local Sales and Use Tax.​

In Texas you pay different sales tax rates based on the delivery address. If you are a purchaser you are receiving an order, if you are a seller you are delivering an order. New York state would be another example of different rates depending on where an item is delivered for in-state online sellers.



>>>>

Don't know how to read either, how wonderful. It does explain why you think this bill is a great thing though.

Just to point out the obvious, that site has nothing to do with where a business ships to, it is telling business that they have to pay sales taxes based upon where they are located.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

State Departments of Revenue and Taxation already monitor businesses and audit their books for Brick & Mortar stores and online sellers operating within that state. If a business is breaking the law their job in enforcement. If I own a business in VA, I have to have a business license, must operate within the law, and I'm subject to audits by VA.

That structure already exists.

Your assumption that each an every business goes through a monthly or even a yearly audit is probably incorrect. My understanding is that audits are usually done because of (a) irregularities in reporting, or (b) random selection. Only businesses with over $1,000,000 in online sales collect the tax, they will already be incorporated as a business.


>>>>

One can see you are very Gung ho on this bill. Just wondering why?

Not "gung ho" on the bill, as a consumer it means more dollars out of my pocket.

Shooting down inaccuracies about how a law functions does not equal being "gung ho" about a bill. It more indicates discussion from a detached logical basis instead of making an emotional decision and then using false premises presented to others as to why something "can't" work.

In the early 1900's people told the Wright brothers that flying "can't be done". People said we couldn't put a man on the moon because it "can't be done". Some people confuse "complex" with "can't be done". The requirements of the law that states simplify the taxing requirements, that they provide a single access point for resellers so that don't have to deal with 9,600 jurisdictions, that the software electronically prepare and submit the reporting requirements means that the retailer is going to be insulated from the "complexity".

Emotionally? Ya, paying more taxes sucks.

Logically? People are breaking the law by not remitting taxes ALREADY required because the current system is the "honor system" after the fact. This closes the loophole and shifts the paradigm to time of sale. The same method already applied to B&M sellers.



>>>>

It is entirely possible to turn the entire planet into a radioactive wasteland.

In other words, just because we can do something does not mean we should.

I do appreciate you trying to make this about people hating progress instead of what it really is about though. It shows how desperate you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not "gung ho" on the bill, as a consumer it means more dollars out of my pocket.

Shooting down inaccuracies about how a law functions does not equal being "gung ho" about a bill. It more indicates discussion from a detached logical basis instead of making an emotional decision and then using false premises presented to others as to why something "can't" work.

In the early 1900's people told the Wright brothers that flying "can't be done". People said we couldn't put a man on the moon because it "can't be done". Some people confuse "complex" with "can't be done". The requirements of the law that states simplify the taxing requirements, that they provide a single access point for resellers so that don't have to deal with 9,600 jurisdictions, that the software electronically prepare and submit the reporting requirements means that the retailer is going to be insulated from the "complexity".

Emotionally? Ya, paying more taxes sucks.

Logically? People are breaking the law by not remitting taxes ALREADY required because the current system is the "honor system" after the fact. This closes the loophole and shifts the paradigm to time of sale. The same method already applied to B&M sellers.

>>>>

The problem I have with the bill is that you are taxing retailers that are not in your state and that your state provides nothing in return. What does a retailer in Florida get in return for taxing customers in NY? This is simply the states being greedy.

Which is why, if this is really about being fair, Congress should make this a point of sale tax, not a point of delivery.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Since this started withe damn Rs, I have a suggestion ... When you call your R congress person, use the phrase, "... raise taxes ...". For the Rs, that's a real dog whistle and just might get their attention.

Or not.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, that is what the state has to do. Want to point to the part where the company can pretend there is only one sales tax for the entire state?

Please point to where I said there was only one sales tax for the entire state please.

I said their would be one tax collection agency that out of state resellers would be interfacing with, not that there would be one tax rate.

The states, to participate in the program, will be required to have a single tax agency to interface with and they will supply the software to facilitate tax calculations and filing for returns. The tax will be calculated based on the delivery access and the software will lookup the correct rate based on tables supplied by the state.



Maybe you should respond to what I say instead of making shit up, like "one tax rate for an entire state" - something I never said or implied.

By the way, why are you the idiot defending the idiot OP who can't even write?

No defending the OP, just discussing the law. From an emotional level I don't like it. That doesn't preclude a logical discussion of what the law actually says and does as opposed to strawman talking points.



>>>>

Where did you say that? Seriously?

When someone points out that a business is going to be responsible for collecting taxes for thousands of different agencies, and you reply that the law requires states to set up a single portal, what the fuck do you think it means?

What it means is that the individual e-commerce retailer WILL NOT have to be interfacing with thousands of different agencies, the law specifically prevents that.

What will happen, per the law, is the the e-commerce retailer will interface with ONE entity per state. That entity will provide the software that returns the proper tax rate based on the address of delivery. Saying that the retailer is "responsible for collecting taxes for thousands of different agencies" is incorrect, they collect taxes for ONE agency. That state level agency is then responsible for dispersing the taxes to the local taxing entities.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have one thing to say about that, tough fucking shit.

By the way, my plan is to cut spending then talk about taxes.

Stop saying we, it makes you look like you are Obama.

Your individual plan is irrelevant.

We, as in Republicans. Last year when the Dem's were talking about raising tax rates to raise revenues with no cuts in spending - "we" (Republicans) said that our plan was reduce spending, maintain tax rates flate AND close tax loopholes to generate revenue. Go back and research the election from last year, that was our plan.

This is closing a tax loophole which was the basis for the SCOTUS decision in Quill v. North Dakota.


>>>>

You are the one that said we, so I pointed out that you and that mouse you keep in your pocket do not speak for me.

By the way, this is not a loophiole because every single business in the country gets to do the same thing. I can walk into any store in California, talk to the staff and tell them that I am buying something to ship home to Texas, and I will get it without paying CA sales taxes. Is that a loophole, or are you just really confused because you are actually a Democrat who think loophole means something you do not like?

I made no attempt to "speak for you", I was talking about the position of the Republican Party during the last election. Since I'm a Republican the "We" was me and the party. What your personal opinion is is irrelevant.

It's a loophole because you are not remitting the required tax required under Texas law. When you make such a purchase, you are required under Texas law (or the person that is receiving the package) to then remit the Use Tax to Texas.

It's a "loophole" because it is a means used by individual to illegally pay ZERO taxes. The shift is simply taking the "honor system" back-end method and shifting it to the time of purchase method. Same as B&M.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

They aren't getting it now, so that makes it new, despite your idiotic attempt to claim that it ain't fair.

Again with the strawman, I've said the naming of the bill is a smoke screen with the whole "fairness" aspect. The reality is this is about revenue.

The taxes are not new, they've been around for years. The shift though is from an "honor system" after the fact method to a font end time of sale method - you know, just like the one used by B&M stores.



>>>>

The revenue is new.
The revenue is new.
The revenue is new.
The revenue is new.
The revenue is new.

Now that we have got that drilled into your brain perhaps we can actually have an intelligent conversation about this.

The tax is not new.
The tax is not new.
The tax is not new.
The tax is not new.
The tax is not new.
The tax is not new.

Of course the revenue is not new, it used to be paid by B&M stores prior to the internet. Now people are evading tax requirements by using online purchases to pay ZERO in taxes.

The revenue has been owed, the taxes are not new. The method of collection is new.

Now that we have got that drilled into your brain perhaps we can actually have an intelligent conversation about this.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just from 2 states.
Link: Too many taxing authorities in Illinois | Evanston Now

From the text of the law as a requirement:

"(2) implements each of the following minimum simplification requirements:

(A) Provide--

(i) a single entity within the State responsible for all State and local sales and use tax administration, return processing, and audits for remote sales sourced to the State;

(ii) a single audit of a remote seller for all State and local taxing jurisdictions within that State; and

(iii) a single sales and use tax return to be used by remote sellers to be filed with the single entity responsible for tax administration."

Text of S. 743: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 (Passed the Senate (Engrossed) version) - GovTrack.us​

Out of state retailers will not have to deal with local tax authorities.



>>>>

Out of state retailers will not have to deal with local tax authorities.

No, but they would potentially have to deal with 50 (57 by Obama's count) different auditing agents. I've been through two state sales tax audits. They cost time and money even if the company has been found in compliance. Now they could be audited 50 times a year.

Would they be responsible to travel to the state for the privilege of being audited or would the state be gracious enough to contract with auditors in various locations? I would not count on the "OR".

Immie

As I said just a few posts ago, I disagree with that provision. I'd like to see an amendment whereby the auditing authority would be the entity responsible for auditing business within the state of incorporation (partnership, LLC, etc.). If that audit found that a business was illegally not processing tax requirements for out of state sales, then they would have direct jurisdictional power to deal with the issue.



>>>>

 

[Steelplate]

Hey....I'm all for it....it'll help pay for my wife and I's State Pensions!

Wow....that ought to piss a few off.....bwahaha!