http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010804/pl/tech_governors_tax_dc_1.html -- -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 08:50 PM 8/4/2001 -0500, you wrote:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010804/pl/tech_governors_tax_dc_1.html
Governors Seeking Internet Tax By Leslie Gevirtz PROVIDENCE, R.I. (Reuters) - Wyoming Gov. Jim Geringer on Saturday urged Congress to allow states to tax e-commerce to replenish state coffers.
Perhaps some on the list can explain to me what the governors are asking from Congress. A plain reading of the Constitution supports and recent SC decisions have confirmed that the Commerce Clause prohibits states from taxing out-of-state corporations without an in-state nexus. Congress is also prohibited from delegating their taxation powers to the states, in the same way the SC ruled they may not delegate to the Pres the editing of bills via the line item veto, so what are they asking for? steve
I'm no expert on this -- in fact, I've studiously avoided becoming one on this -- but my understanding is that under the Quill decision, California can't force PennsylvaniaBooks.com to collect sales taxes on shipments to SF and remit it to the Calif tax collectors. (Without nexus, that is.) Ideally the guvs would like federal law to modify the Quill ruling. -Declan On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 09:49:32PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 08:50 PM 8/4/2001 -0500, you wrote:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010804/pl/tech_governors_tax_dc_1.html
Governors Seeking Internet Tax By Leslie Gevirtz PROVIDENCE, R.I. (Reuters) - Wyoming Gov. Jim Geringer on Saturday urged Congress to allow states to tax e-commerce to replenish state coffers.
Perhaps some on the list can explain to me what the governors are asking from Congress. A plain reading of the Constitution supports and recent SC decisions have confirmed that the Commerce Clause prohibits states from taxing out-of-state corporations without an in-state nexus. Congress is also prohibited from delegating their taxation powers to the states, in the same way the SC ruled they may not delegate to the Pres the editing of bills via the line item veto, so what are they asking for?
steve
On Saturday, August 4, 2001, at 10:13 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I'm no expert on this -- in fact, I've studiously avoided becoming one on this -- but my understanding is that under the Quill decision, California can't force PennsylvaniaBooks.com to collect sales taxes on shipments to SF and remit it to the Calif tax collectors. (Without nexus, that is.)
Ideally the guvs would like federal law to modify the Quill ruling.
I'm with Steve Schear on this one. If Alice in California buys a thing from a person or store in Pennsylvania, and that store is not operating in California (the "nexus"), then charging a tax on that item is NOT a "sales tax." It is much more like a tariff on goods entering California. (What else could it be? The sale is not happening at a store in California, or even arguably at an out-of-state "branch" of a store in California, there being no such store at all in California. Thus the "tax" is really just a tariff or duty. Something specifically forbidden.) Of course, states like California get around _parts_ of this ruling when people bring cars bought elsewhere into California: they require some calculated amount of the effective sales tax, had the car been bought in California, to be paid upon registration of the car. --Tim May
Actually under current law you're supposed to be paying tax on such purchases (you ordering from PennsylvaniaBoks.com, in my example). But almost nobody does pay taxes on their mail order purchases (that lack nexus), so the states are peeved. There are some bills in Congress that would give states the ability to make these taxes mandatory. There's talk of multistate compacts and all that, and tax simplificiation. Don't believe it, of course. I've written about this; search Wired.com for taxes. -Declan On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 11:41:22PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Saturday, August 4, 2001, at 10:13 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I'm no expert on this -- in fact, I've studiously avoided becoming one on this -- but my understanding is that under the Quill decision, California can't force PennsylvaniaBooks.com to collect sales taxes on shipments to SF and remit it to the Calif tax collectors. (Without nexus, that is.)
Ideally the guvs would like federal law to modify the Quill ruling.
I'm with Steve Schear on this one.
If Alice in California buys a thing from a person or store in Pennsylvania, and that store is not operating in California (the "nexus"), then charging a tax on that item is NOT a "sales tax." It is much more like a tariff on goods entering California.
(What else could it be? The sale is not happening at a store in California, or even arguably at an out-of-state "branch" of a store in California, there being no such store at all in California. Thus the "tax" is really just a tariff or duty. Something specifically forbidden.)
Of course, states like California get around _parts_ of this ruling when people bring cars bought elsewhere into California: they require some calculated amount of the effective sales tax, had the car been bought in California, to be paid upon registration of the car.
--Tim May
At 01:13 AM 8/5/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
I'm no expert on this -- in fact, I've studiously avoided becoming one on this -- but my understanding is that under the Quill decision, California can't force PennsylvaniaBooks.com to collect sales taxes on shipments to SF and remit it to the Calif tax collectors. (Without nexus, that is.)
Ideally the guvs would like federal law to modify the Quill ruling.
So, they ARE asking Congress to try and circumvent that nasty 'ol Commerce Clause. It should be interesting to see what Congress thinks it can fashion th will pass SC muster. steve
At 09:15 AM 8/5/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
So, they ARE asking Congress to try and circumvent that nasty 'ol Commerce Clause. It should be interesting to see what Congress thinks it can fashion th will pass SC muster.
Actually, this may be one of the few areas -- actual interstate trade and taxes -- that come close to the meaning of the Commerce Clause. I suspect a challenge will have to be made on public policy grounds rather than constitutional ones. -Declan
On Sunday, August 5, 2001, at 09:29 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
At 09:15 AM 8/5/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
So, they ARE asking Congress to try and circumvent that nasty 'ol Commerce Clause. It should be interesting to see what Congress thinks it can fashion th will pass SC muster.
Actually, this may be one of the few areas -- actual interstate trade and taxes -- that come close to the meaning of the Commerce Clause. I suspect a challenge will have to be made on public policy grounds rather than constitutional ones.
California's energy crisis (cough) could be solved overnight if dynamos could be attached to the Founders spinning in their graves. Item: California is seeking to collect taxes on a transaction which did not occur in California. Sounds like a tariff on goods entering California. Sounds like what the commerce clause was designed explicitly to stop. Item: The Warren court ruled that a rib joint in the deep south somewhere could not choose its customers as it wished because turning away certain people might discourage them from travelling to that region, which might lessen the business of bus companies and other restaurants and gas stations and all, and so that was some kind of interference in interstate commerce. The commerce clause was invoked to interfere with a person doing with his property as he wishes. And there are the restrictions on what _crops_ a person may grow, even if never sells a single bushel, even a single peanut, on the alleged grounds that his act of growing a crop will affect what he and his family buy...and thus this affects the local Safeway store's business! Call it the "Suppression of Competition and Protection of Special Interests Ruling." (The usual sources, like Findlaw, have scads of references. This one is "Wickard v. Filburn.") (So, does this "open the door" for regulations on books which urge people to travel to New York instead of Iowa, on the grounds that these kinds of books "influence interstate commerce"? The mind boggles at what lawyers have done to these united states. Time to fire up the ovens and send them to the showers.) --Tim May
The mind boggles at what lawyers have done to these united states. Time to fire up the ovens and send them to the showers.)
--Tim May
Praise the lord, and pass the Zyklon-B! -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:54 AM -0700 8/5/01, Tim May wrote:
On Sunday, August 5, 2001, at 09:29 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
At 09:15 AM 8/5/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
So, they ARE asking Congress to try and circumvent that nasty 'ol Commerce Clause. It should be interesting to see what Congress thinks it can fashion th will pass SC muster. Actually, this may be one of the few areas -- actual interstate trade and taxes -- that come close to the meaning of the Commerce Clause. I suspect a challenge will have to be made on public policy grounds rather than constitutional ones.
California's energy crisis (cough) could be solved overnight if dynamos could be attached to the Founders spinning in their graves.
Nah, they're mostly buried on the East Coast, so the electricity would have to come across lines owned by "those greedy out of state power companies". Never mind that those greedy out of state power companies were charging less per MW than in-state producers.
Item: California is seeking to collect taxes on a transaction which did not occur in California. Sounds like a tariff on goods entering California. Sounds like what the commerce clause was designed explicitly to stop.
If you are talking about the same thing that Declan is, then at least 1/2 of the transaction *did* occur in California. (I'm not in disagreement with the rest). -- http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.
participants (6)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
measl＠mfn.org -
Petro -
Steve Schear -
Tim May