cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES

How will this pertain to ebay?

Do sellers have to look up all 50 state tax rates?

Will this cause sellers to leave ebay?

 

https://www.12newsnow.com/article/news/nation-world/supreme-court-allows-states-to-collect-sales-tax...

"If you found my reply useful, please give it a Helpful.

If my response assisted in resolving your question, please click Accept as Solution."

nana-nana-boo-boo
Message 1 of 94
latest reply
93 REPLIES 93

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES

But the 1099s arefor income tax, are they also used for sales tax? 

Message 76 of 94
latest reply

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES

Don't panic, remain  calm.  This will take a while to impliment let alone have a way for it to be enforced.  In the case of eBay I think it gets complicated because the venue is resident in CA because that's where eBay is located.  Sellers are all over the place but use the venue to sell through so to speak.  So to me the questions becomes "who" supplies the gov with the sold dollar amounts for each state?  eBay?  I don't think so, PayPal?  They can but again, I don't think so.  In the future Adyen?  I don't think so.  Individual Sellers?  How is that going to be policed?

I think someone posted a short list of other online venues but one I think folks missed was Hibid based in Florida.  Its one of the venues that many Real Estate Auction companies use to host localized Estate Auctions and many of the companies offer shipping BUT they pass that on to a local shipping company like UPS Stores, Ship & Pack, Etc.  So basically, the Buyer arranges the shipping NOT the Auction company so the question becomes who owes the tax ... Buyer? Shipper?

It will be interesting to see what shakes loose on this.

Regards,
Mr. Lincoln - Community Mentor
Message 77 of 94
latest reply

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES

There is no way individual sellers could be expected to collect and distribute sales taxes for thousands of locals.  What I see happening, if at all, is eBay takes care of the paper work for sellers and adds sales tax to the calculation when a buyer makes a purchase.  eBay then distributes the tax money to the indvidual governments.  Of course they keep a % to cover costs or charge sellers more to cover the effort.  Or, 3rd party opportunists create applications, services, etc. to calculate and charge sales on purchases.  Then we pay them a single monthly payment and they distribute the taxes to local governments after they take their cut.  It's trickle down taxes for the local governments and higher prices for buyers.  All brought to you by the same folks who don't want to raise taxes for any reason, good or bad, and don't want to harm small businesses.

Message 78 of 94
latest reply

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES

General Reply-

 

To me, the nexus thing made the most sense. Then again, MA with it's 'cookie nexus' law is just as slick as goose you-know-what.

 

Anyone remember back in the wild, wild west days of the interwebs and cigarette sales by mail? How states compelled vendors to turn over customer lists and credit card records....and normal Joes all over everywhere got big fat bills in their mailbox with demand letters that they owed a ton of tobacco taxes to their state. This will be an even bigger mess if you ask me....lol!

 

I just don't like the idea of either myself or any 'marketplace' having to collect taxes for any state. If I'm not a resident of a particular state, how can they compel anyone to collect and remit taxes for the residents there? 

 

The burden to pay taxes rests with the citizens that are buying the goods. If a state's citizens aren't willing to pay their own taxes, it's up to that state to enforce tax laws on it's own residents.

 

Yeah, I know, just dump the burden on the businesses and call it another 'cost of doing business'.

 

It will be interesting to see where this all goes. Not holding my breath for Congress to do much right away, but betting many states are going to break their behinds to get something on the books pronto.

Déjà Moo: The strange feeling that I've heard this bull before...
Message 79 of 94
latest reply

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES


@the*dog*ate*my*tablecloth wrote:

But the 1099s arefor income tax, are they also used for sales tax? 


@the*dog*ate*my*tablecloth

 

According to the law, sales is considered income.

Depending on my filing ie. business or hobby, I would still have to file a form.

1099's are usually applied to a schedule c form.

and 1099's come with loads of versions.

 

1099- R, G, K , misc, and so on.

Depending on the requirement, that will lwt you know which form to apply it to.

Either 1040, or Schedule C

Whenever you receive a W-2 or 1099, this lets you know that whomever sent you one has also sent the same copy to the IRS.

Message 80 of 94
latest reply

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES


@ted_200 wrote:

@dr.clockenstien wrote:

tyler@ebay wrote:

@mallontown wrote:

How will this pertain to ebay?

Do sellers have to look up all 50 state tax rates?

Will this cause sellers to leave ebay?

 

https://www.12newsnow.com/article/news/nation-world/supreme-court-allows-states-to-collect-sales-tax...


Hi @mallontown - we have a statement about today's decision here.

 

The Court’s decision is focused on large retailers who engage in a significant quantity of business in a state, and the retailers involved in the case are large, national companies. In other words, it remains to be seen what today’s ruling may mean for small businesses. 

 

As a next step, we are calling on Congress to step in and provide clear tax rules, with a strong small business exemption, to help small businesses take advantage of the Internet to grow and create local jobs. 

 

We expect to have more information and will provide updates as the legal landscape from this becomes clearer. Thanks! 


Copied, Pasted, SCRIPTED answer from ebay exact statement from another post.

How much are they really invested in your concerns?

NEVER trust the employee statements.

 

RepLies:

same old fluff, no real answers

(thumbs up from another ebay rep on original post)


I'll second that last bit, but they're plenty invested on our concerns.  It's the one real advantage they actually have over their (perceived) primary competition - Amazon. 

 

In this case, their copied, pasted, and scripted answer is pretty good.   The SC decision doesn't affect much of anything by itself - I wasn't sending sales tax to SD before, and I'm not sending it to them now.  To eBay's credit, they did not just knuckle under at the drop of a hat to tax schemes from WA and PA either (like another venue did), and I do expect them to fight this.

 

What the SC decision does do is open up the door to other states to attempt this sort of thing, and also opens the door to a nationalized state sales tax clearing house scheme from Congress (which they've been looking at already, for quite some time now).  Congress has not acted yet, and I doubt they will act very quickly now - the place is a mess, it takes them forever to do anything.  So the battle is not lost already, nor is it over, it is only starting. 


I agree with that, it was my main concern that the door is now open so they now have gained the leverage to work it the way they want to.

 

I did not realize that Amazon is even worse than ebay with the level of concern for its vendors.

It looks like for now, that this topic is the one thing that ebay and it's users can agree on.

 

Thanks Ted.

Message 81 of 94
latest reply

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES

The IRS and 1099s have nothing to do with sales tax as far as I know. This discussion is about sales tax so I’m trying to figure out how those forms are relevant. Different circus. Different monkeys.

Message 82 of 94
latest reply

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES

mr_lincoln,

 

I am a great admirer of your posts and calm demeanor.  We can sure use more of that calm demeanor around here right now.

 

The new eBay petition to be presented to members of Congress mentions vintage and antiques (sorry, don't have a copy in front of me).

 

In your opinion do you think eBay is stating only certain categories of goods should be exempt?  

 

Since eBay is already moving to become a marketplace facilitator like Amazon and Etsy, if this exemption is adopted, how will the sold goods (used vs new) be accounted for and sales tax properly collected? Who decides what is an antique, collectible or vintage?  If these designations are left up to the seller to decide I can see a whole lot more fraudulent listings in these categories.

 

Will eBay be forced to separate into eBay Motors, eBay Marketplace (new merchandise) and eBay Vintage?

 

Would appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks!

 

 

Message 83 of 94
latest reply

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES

I have been checking some of the states out in this tax deal and have read most of the like Wa, Pa, Oklahoma, and some others and most of the say if you have a store not located in the state you would have to sell 10,000.00 to pay any sales taxes. Looks like what I have read you have a bunch of companies going to appeal this and it could take a year or longer before this even takes effect.

Message 84 of 94
latest reply

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES

It's a mess alright. I'm not even sure of WA & PA's actual legal standing in being able to collect what is effectively an in state tax on their residents from out of state residents (ie the sellers).

Just because AMZ & Etsy caved doesn't mean it's legal.

"If a product doesn't sell, raise the price" - Reese Palley
"If it sold FAST, it was priced too low" - also Reese Palley
Message 85 of 94
latest reply

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES

SCOTUS just said it’s legal. That’s what the ruling says. Wayfair et al will be collecting and remitting taxes where they have no nexus only sales.

Message 86 of 94
latest reply

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES

Yes, well, let's wait and see if it's contested.

"If a product doesn't sell, raise the price" - Reese Palley
"If it sold FAST, it was priced too low" - also Reese Palley
Message 87 of 94
latest reply

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES

Who can contest it but Congress by passing new laws? How can congress set new laws on something that is the purview of the states? Since when does any government turn down money?

Message 88 of 94
latest reply

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES


@dr.clockenstien wrote:

@the*dog*ate*my*tablecloth wrote:

But the 1099s arefor income tax, are they also used for sales tax? 


@the*dog*ate*my*tablecloth

 

According to the law, sales is considered income.

Depending on my filing ie. business or hobby, I would still have to file a form.

1099's are usually applied to a schedule c form.

and 1099's come with loads of versions.

 

1099- R, G, K , misc, and so on.

Depending on the requirement, that will lwt you know which form to apply it to.

Either 1040, or Schedule C

Whenever you receive a W-2 or 1099, this lets you know that whomever sent you one has also sent the same copy to the IRS.


We are talking about the collection and submission of STATE SALES TAX which has NOTHING to do with a 1099 which concerns income taxes.  You are pushing a rabbit hole of an argument that has nothing to do with the collection and submission of state sales taxes. 

Message 89 of 94
latest reply

Re: SUPREME COURT RULES THAT STATES CAN CHARGE TAXES ON INTERNET PURCHASES


@lookng2015 wrote:
It's a mess alright. I'm not even sure of WA & PA's actual legal standing in being able to collect what is effectively an in state tax on their residents from out of state residents (ie the sellers).

Just because AMZ & Etsy caved doesn't mean it's legal.

I think just about all the states have a use tax on their residents for purchases made out of state which is the same as a sales tax.  The problem is, residents have to voluntarily submit this every year and don't.  So all states are doing now, using the recent SCOTUS ruling, is using out of state sellers to collect those use/sales taxes for them instead.  I'd call it perfectly legal.

 

On another note, just as a comparison, it is against US law to use and distribute marijuana.  How many states today have passed laws that make this legal under certain conditions/requirements?  Plenty.  In spite of it being illegal at the Fed level. 

Message 90 of 94
latest reply