by wj
The big news this week appears to center around Michael Cohen, James Comey, and the usual political soap opera that our country seems to have become. But there is something else of interest going on -- something which will actually have a noticable impact on most of us.
Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on South Dakota v. Wayfair which concerns whether a state can require an on-line retailer with no physical presence in the state to collect state sales taxes. Currently (under the Court's decision in 1992 in Quill v. North Dakota), only those retailers with a physical presence in a state, for example a warehouse, can be required to collect tax. But this may change that.
At the moment, my state at least requires me to pay the sales taxes for on-line purchases when filing my state income tax. The problem, of course, is that nobody keeps track of on-line purchases for that. Personally, I would have no problem paying the tax. What I have a problem with is doing the administration and paperwork. So if the retailer, like every other retailer in the state, would collect the tax, that would be fine with me. The states certainly need the revenue, and it definitely seems like a leveling-the-playing-field approach.
And it's not like it's really going to be a huge burden for the on-line retailers. The software to calculate the relevant sales tax is trivial. For a computer, keeping a running total of the amounts owed to 50 different states (or even a bunch of smaller jurisdictions which may impose additional sales taxes) is likewise trivial. From the amicus briefs being filed, you'd think that the on-line retailers believe having to collect sales taxes would make a huge hit on their business. But I just cannot believe that there will be that much impact. Anybody have a different perspective?
Recent Comments