Mac Users

[Penske_Account]

Originally Posted by atticus grinch

i think we've had this discussion already. Penske's subsequent clarification doesn't address my point, because use tax doesn't hinge upon whether the website has bricks and mortar in the state -- it hinges upon whether the state of residence imposes use tax for out-of-state purchases. If he buys from amazon, amazon will charge him sales tax. If he buys from macconnection or j&r, he's got a legal duty to report the purchase and to pay a use tax that is equal to the sales tax that would have applied had it been an in-state purchase, including potentially king county's add-on.



link.



I think my original post left open the possibility that penske might find a way internally to rationalize the non-reporting of use tax.

\

stp.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Penske_Account

\

stp.

I apologize for implying that your approach to the tax might mirror that of 99% of your fellow citizens. I should have known that if there was a 1% solution, Penske would find it.

[Penske_Account]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I apologize for implying that your approach to the tax might mirror that of 99% of your fellow citizens. I should have known that if there was a 1% solution, Penske would find it.

Thanks. You're coming around here validates all of the hard work and consistent focus that I have put into the brand over the years.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I apologize for implying that your approach to the tax might mirror that of 99% of your fellow citizens. I should have known that if there was a 1% solution, Penske would find it.

1% compliance overestimates the rate by several orders of magnitude.

The only way it gets to that level is if the next Commerce nominee gets hung up on use-tax avoidance charges. And I'm pretty sure neither party wants to go there.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I think we've had this discussion already. Penske's subsequent clarification doesn't address my point, because use tax doesn't hinge upon whether the website has bricks and mortar in the state -- it hinges upon whether the state of residence imposes use tax for out-of-state purchases. If he buys from Amazon, Amazon will charge him sales tax. If he buys from MacConnection or J&R, he's got a legal duty to report the purchase and to pay a use tax that is equal to the sales tax that would have applied had it been an in-state purchase, including potentially King County's add-on.



Link. (It appears that WA's use tax is harsher than CA's, because in CA you don't have to pay use tax if you paid sales tax in the state of purchase, whereas apparently in WA you do.)

The existence of use tax means sales tax is a non-factor to the decision of where to buy, unless you have no intention of reporting taxes that are due.



I think my original post left open the possibility that Penske might find a way internally to rationalize the non-reporting of use tax.

When was the moratorium on interstate sales over the internet lifted?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

When was the moratorium on interstate sales over the internet lifted?

I don't think that ever limited states from imposing use taxes on their residents. It prevented states from forcing retailers to collect taxes from buyers.

[1436]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

And I'm pretty sure neither party wants to go there.

Just because both are guilty doesn't mean it can't be used to drag down the level of discourse.

It actually fits quite well in the current narrative: change = more tax cheats.

[Atticus Grinch]

Zork revisited by a modern gamer.