TexasCHLforum.com

spectre wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2018 5:45 pm Another thing is how does South Dakota expect to enforce this? If they can't get their own residents to remit the tax, how do they expect to get non-residents to remit the tax?

They'll require the business to collect it on their behalf, like states do with sales taxes now for businesses with a presence within its borders. How you justify going across the line to a business that has no physical presence in your state is beyond me. It's called interstate commerce for a reason, and Congress was specifically given control of this for a reason.

Just wait until California sales tax auditors demand to see the books of a Texas based on-line ammo or firearms retailer.

AF-Odin wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2018 5:35 pm California tried to collect property tax from me for the Air Force "On-Base" quarters I lived in. Didn't work! Years later, they came after me for state income tax for the time I was stationed in California. Didn't work either, but still did not stop them from trying.

They already do this for professional athletes, I believe. They calculate the portion of, say, a Houston Rockets player's salary when the team is playing, say, the Lakers in LA and they have to remit California income tax on that portion, or the amount of money a pro golfer won for a tournament at Pebble Beach.

Note: I'm using California as an example but every state with a state income tax does this I believe.

It's not a particularly big stretch to say that if athletes have to do this, why not, say, consultants who work for a company in Dallas who are on assignment in New York?

I hope 1-2 states(NY and CA maybe?) jump on this first and it creates an instant stagnation of all online retailers in those states. The backfire will cost them jobs and business in addition to NOT collecting extra taxes.

The way some of these socialist states operate, I am surprised they don't try to collect state income tax on tourist for the paid vacations they were on when they visited.

twomillenium wrote: Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:30 am The way some of these socialist states operate, I am surprised they don't try to collect state income tax on tourist for the paid vacations they were on when they visited.

California tried and was successful collecting income tax from people who didn't work in CA but owned vacation homes in CA.

Crazy but at least tourists set foot in those States, unlike the Texas seller who ships to CA or SD.

I was sent to NY in 2016 on a temporary assignment that lasted 12 weeks. NY starts applying income tax after 14 days of working in state. I had to file NY state income tax returns for that period. I received most of what they took back from them. I had heard NY did this to get tax money from professional athletes that play games in NY state. NY has no problem taxing non-residents.

I read a few years ago that a professional athlete was trying to get his contract constructed so that he only got paid when he played in states that had no state income tax, he played for free in the income tax states. Never found out the legality of having a contract like that.

This is only making it fair to the brick and mortar shops which have to collect and pay State tax while some out of State vendors had the advantage of not paying the tax. 8.25 % makes a hugh advantage for the internet vendor.

Scott Farkus wrote: Mon Jun 25, 2018 6:56 am

spectre wrote: Sun Jun 24, 2018 5:45 pm Another thing is how does South Dakota expect to enforce this? If they can't get their own residents to remit the tax, how do they expect to get non-residents to remit the tax?

They'll require the business to collect it on their behalf, like states do with sales taxes now for businesses with a presence within its borders. How you justify going across the line to a business that has no physical presence in your state is beyond me. It's called interstate commerce for a reason, and Congress was specifically given control of this for a reason.

Just wait until California sales tax auditors demand to see the books of a Texas based on-line ammo or firearms retailer.

That seems a lot like a South Dakota judge issuing an arrest warrant for a Colorado resident who smoked pot in Colorado, because pot is illegal in South Dakota.

I can understand how a judge could rule that South Dakota can collect tax from SD residents who purchase from an out of state seller who doesn't collect SD sales tax. I can understand how a judge could rule that a SD business must collect and remit SD sales tax even if the purchaser is out of state, because the seller is in state. What I can't understand is how a judge could rule that South Dakota has jurisdiction over anything outside its borders.