SCOTUS Rules...Staes Can Require Online Retailers To Collect Sales Tax

Thieves in black robes are never going to rule against federal or state income generation, be it a 'penalty', a 'tax', or 'e-commerce' - they're appointed for life and have free healthcare and armed security, the best job benefits any lawyer could hope to win in the lottery of life.

Just think of all those taxes that my grandparents never paid from the mail order catalogs....out of date my arse.
 
Last edited:
This isn't just about collecting sales tax for online vendors. The bigger issue is how to calculate and remit said sales tax, and the required manpower to so do. Do you have to collect the local portion, too? If so, how do you know what the local tax is? In states like CA and NY, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of different combinations of state/local rates. This has the potential to swamp smaller online vendors. The only people who can handle said collection and remittance are the big boys. This ruling could result in a dramatic downsizing of online retailers, from ebay/gunbroker sellers to online retailers with their own websites.

Heck, just dealing with NC sales tax is a sizable chunk of my admin time each month. The NC reporting system is arcane and time consuming.
 
Gee, let’s line up to thank them

Time value of money and all, filing it on our taxes would be more beneficial

Here's what I do.

I put the money into a savings acct. and collect the interest and then pay the tax.

Then I go out on Lake Norman and capsize my boat and lose my firearms.
 
Was just thinking about this ruling. Basically, SCOTUS ruled that it is constitutional for a state to tax and regulate a company or individual in another state, rather than tax and regulate the resident of said state who is not paying the required taxes on the goods bought under current state law. The Pandora's Box this ruling opens up is quite frightening, actually.
 
This isn't just about collecting sales tax for online vendors. The bigger issue is how to calculate and remit said sales tax, and the required manpower to so do. Do you have to collect the local portion, too? If so, how do you know what the local tax is? In states like CA and NY, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of different combinations of state/local rates. This has the potential to swamp smaller online vendors. The only people who can handle said collection and remittance are the big boys. This ruling could result in a dramatic downsizing of online retailers, from ebay/gunbroker sellers to online retailers with their own websites.

Heck, just dealing with NC sales tax is a sizable chunk of my admin time each month. The NC reporting system is arcane and time consuming.


www.avalara.com

^ we integrated this system with our ERP software last year. It's the bee's knees if you collect tax in multiple jurisdictions.


Enter an address here: https://www.avataxrates.com
and get the proper tax rate returned.
 
Last edited:
But wait! There's more...

Supreme Court Sales Tax Ruling Could Mean Trouble for Gun Owners

With the new requirement for retailers to collect and report on line sales taxes, states will have the right to audit retailers to ensure compliance. That means those states will be able to, say, take a look at Midway USA’s sales data for California and, while they’re doing that, take note of anyone who’s purchased Magpul AR furniture. Or New York’s busy bean counters could comb through Lucky Gunner’s books and see who’s purchased .223 ammunition.

Potential ugliness.
 
here's the thing, who is going to enforce an out of state tax collection requirement? Can NC get a lien on a business like Midway USA for not collecting taxes on my rimfire ammo, or Caldwell bipod?

This is a bad bad ruling on the part of the ringwraiths.

Here's a picture after the 5-4 ruling of the majority
images
 
Last edited:
Is this the first time ever that Ginsburg agreed with the so called "right" on the SC?
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
 
Is this the first time ever that Ginsburg agreed with the so called "right" on the SC?
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

And Donald Trump became president!
 
of course Gorsuch went along with it, he's from Montana which is one of the 5 states without state sales taxes.
 
This does suck for the average consumer, but for smaller brick and mortar companies it evens the playing field a little bit. Right now I can order a $1000 gun from Buds and pay an FFL the transfer fee of let's say $30. And no tax. Let's call the tax $80. So it makes sense to buy online. I save $50. If I have to pay tax online for everything then as long as my local brick and mortar is no more than $30 more it makes more sense to buy locally. Of course, it all depends on the amounts involved, local tax rates, and the assumption your local guy has the correct inventory. But some of our local businesses may benefit, which is not a bad thing. Then again, whenever GOV gets more involved in the economy there are unseen consequences that will pop up later and likely screw us all. :(
 
So the gang of nine has decided we are not taxed enough already...although disappointed by this ruling, I 'm not the least bit surprised.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
Eh, if they really wanted to know they could find that stuff out already.
Websites know what we look at (look at any ads on websites, they'll often be what youve been searching lately etc), dont think the .gov does too?
If NY really wanted to know who was purchasing 223 ammo, they'd know.

No doubt true but why make it any easier for them. Further, though they likely do already know who's buying what, they are (at least theoretically) not supposed to know and so can't make their "sources and methods" public. This pretty much brings all that out into the open now with a legal, above board perusal of business accounts for tax purposes.

Of course, if you're not doing anything wrong, why worry right?
 
of course Gorsuch went along with it, he's from Montana which is one of the 5 states without state sales taxes.
Yeah, how does that work? Also, the last time I was out there which has been a while, they had drive thru liquor by the drink. Just another reason I want to move there.
 
So the gang of nine has decided we are not taxed enough already...although disappointed by this ruling, I 'm not the least bit surprised.
You do understand that you were required to pay that tax anyway , right?

And here is the difference between a Free Man and a slave.

taxation-is-theft-lysander.jpg


I cannot wait to see the day when @J R Green tells us "You do understand that you're required to turn 'em in anyway, right?"
 
Last edited:
Why does a simple statement of fact warrant this kind of response? Your problem isn't with me it's with the truth.
It was in part humor. Yes, referencing Beavis and Butthead is humor. Humor directed at what seems to be your tendency to accept whatever govco declared on its face value; in this case the ability of states to levy tax on interstate commerce, which has been a classic case of moving the goal posts. Sales tax became sales and use and I as well as s substantial part of the populace called bullspit on it and refused to comply.

It was in part, a sarcastic statement about how you state that we can be required to pay the tax, but the state saying it is required doesn't guarantee compliance. In fact, suspect that a lot more effort will now be spent by consumers to specifically avoid it.
 
It was in part humor. Yes, referencing Beavis and Butthead is humor. Humor directed at what seems to be your tendency to accept whatever govco declared on its face value; in this case the ability of states to levy tax on interstate commerce, which has been a classic case of moving the goal posts. Sales tax became sales and use and I as well as s substantial part of the populace called bullspit on it and refused to comply.

It was in part, a sarcastic statement about how you state that we can be required to pay the tax, but the state saying it is required doesn't guarantee compliance. In fact, suspect that a lot more effort will now be spent by consumers to specifically avoid it.
You think I like taxes? I spent a few months unemployed a few years ago and had to live off of 401K savings and paid taxes on them when I pulled them out, I then had to pay tax on them at the end of the year. I still don't know how you pay twice on the same money.

Yes, I accept them as its the law of the land. If you don't like the law change it... or break it; make your statement in the real world not whining and criticizing anyone who will speak the truth because you don't like it.
 
Last edited:
It's the right of the government to take as much money from you as they wish.

(it's the right of Free Men to be as free as they choose to be)
 
Last edited:
This does suck for the average consumer, but for smaller brick and mortar companies it evens the playing field a little bit. Right now I can order a $1000 gun from Buds and pay an FFL the transfer fee of let's say $30. And no tax. Let's call the tax $80. So it makes sense to buy online. I save $50. If I have to pay tax online for everything then as long as my local brick and mortar is no more than $30 more it makes more sense to buy locally. Of course, it all depends on the amounts involved, local tax rates, and the assumption your local guy has the correct inventory. But some of our local businesses may benefit, which is not a bad thing. Then again, whenever GOV gets more involved in the economy there are unseen consequences that will pop up later and likely screw us all. :(
Jerek's a pretty good example of this. ;)
 
The overall result would likely end up being close to revenue neutral for the states. The increased compliance costs reduces business income taxes collected.

The larger on line store fronts will gain from selling compliance services.
The tax compliance industry loves this ruling.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Is this the first time ever that Ginsburg agreed with the so called "right" on the SC?
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., and GORSUCH, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

Ginsburg provided a great definition in Muscarello v US of "bear arms" as “wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person”. . . although her purpose was the leftist goal of justifying reducing the sentence of a drug dealer.
 
It is going to be too big a challenge for many small companies that sell online. Places that sell repair parts for appliances, or power equipment. Places where I have ordered parts for appliances, mowers, weedeaters, etc., that just can't be found locally.

Why? because there are over 7,000 different sales tax rates in the country between the differing state, county, and city sales tax rates, and type of product, i.e. differing rates on food and non-food items. Followed by the requirement to forward the tax collected to all these different states, counties, and cities, probably every quarter.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I accept them as its the law of the land. If you don't like the law change it... or break it; make your statement in the real world not whining and criticizing anyone who will speak the truth because you don't like it.
I will continue to do as I’ve done for years. I can’t tell you which online sales have or have not collected tax. I will also continue to buy from vendors that don’t show sales tax on the order; yes I will avoid this tax because I believe it’s wrong.

While I recognize that some degree of taxation is likely necessary in a functioning society, it has gotten out of hand and is part of a much larger problem involving spending by government. I absolutely object to municipalities simply making things up as they go along and demanding a cut as they desire. I’ve paid them, begrudgingly, and not without thought of taking a different approach. I doubt that you like it any more than anyone else. You just seem to be a lot more accepting of their “authority” at face value, whereas I would be willing to fight over the matter.

As much as I would love to change the stupid law, you know as well as I do that there is no real possibility of doing that from within the system. I’m sure the nations founders would have loved to changed the law too, but realized just how futile that proposition is.

Oh, by the way, the Cornholio reference wasn’t meant as an insult to you. I was mocking the politicians who think we will obey. They’re the ones who want us to bow down before their all mighty hung holes and give them TP.
 
Last edited:
Ginsburg provided a great definition in Muscarello v US of "bear arms" as “wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person”. . . although her purpose was the leftist goal of justifying reducing the sentence of a drug dealer.
She only likes the constitution when she can twist it to get the result she wants. Most of the time she is referencing foreign law or foreign standards.
 
Back
Top Bottom