Rush Limbaugh is not my Savior, and Neil Boortz isn’t my financial planner.
Open Thread.
Fresh Political Pickins From The Peach State
Archives
Search PeachPundit
Recent Comments
Meta
Blogroll
- 2010 Georgia Race Tracker
- AJC’s Political Insider
- Atlanta Unfiltered
- Avenue PR
- Blog for Democracy
- Bludgeon & Skewer
- Buzz’s Site
- Chuck Shiflett
- Cracker Squire
- Drifting Through The Grift
- Dunwoody North
- Fresh Loaf
- Georgia Daily Digest
- Georgia Hwy 120 Politics
- Georgia Legislative Watch
- Georgia News Beat
- Georgia Politics Podcast
- Georgia Politics.net
- Gold Dome Live
- Good Will Hinton
- Jason Pye
- Jeff Emanuel
- Left on Lanier
- Live Apartment Fire
- Lucid Idiocy
- Ms. Underestimated
- New Republicans
- Obi’s Sister
- OmniVore
- Peanut Politics
- Political Vine
- Progressive Peach
- Project Logic Ga
- Ronald Daniels
- Rural Democrat
- Rusty Tanton
- Safe As Houses
- Screams from the Porch
- Shepherd’s Political Pie
- Southern Appeal
- SWGA Politics
- That's Just Peachy
- The Barr Code
- The Other Athens
- Thread of Dreams
- Thunderstruck
- Tondees Tavern
- WMCC News
Contributors
Follow Us
Legislators' Blogs
Copyright © 2010 Tanalach Media, LLC - All rights reserved. Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Copyright
Powered by Web Design Company Plugins
{ 272 comments }
← Previous Comments
Indy,
Neal and the other FTers would like to not hear from you on this anymore and, instead, continue smoking dope. Its funner.
I love how Indy keeps citing the language of a bill that’s proposed, and is almost certain to change if it’s ever going to pass, like it is a stone tablet carried by Moses.
Regardless of what it is called, the government will still need a department to receive funds. Does anyone disagree with that, other than II and JK?
Doug,
Here’s the real question for you.
John Linder co-authored the bill.
John Linder co-authored the book.
Only one can be voted on.
Why isn’t what’s “in the book” in the bill?
Seems to me it’s been around long enough that the two could easily be reconciled if there was an honest attempt being made to make “the concept” that the cultists have sworn allegiance to match “the bill” which is the only part worth debating since it, and not “the concept”, is what will have the power of law.
Is it time for Friday afternoon Margaritas yet?
You do mean, is it time for the next round, don’t you?
Icarus is right on point. The bill is NOT the book and has some interesting “gotchas”. Before you fall in love with something, do the due diligence!
This summarizes an eight year chunk of my life.
Plus 2 points for Mr. Balz.
Is this a reference to the “It’s Complicated” you have on FB?
It’s not really that complicated Doug. The first time you ignore “before you fall in love with something, do the due dilligence”. The next time it bcomes Lewis Grizzard’s “the next time I fall in love with something, I’m just going to buy it a house and move on”.
Luckily, I have the best wife in the world. Too bad suckers.
I thought that was worthy, too.
7 years for me
Before you fall in love with something, do the due diligence!
Better than that, figure out how to make it pay if the idiots manage to get the votes.
Why didn’t Boortz and Linder ask some sales tax accountants about this nutty deal?
Since the FT BILL puts authority in the hands of the Georgia Department of Revenue, shouldn’t the EXISTING POWERS of the IRS heirs be examined?
* Code of Georgia, section 48-8-51. Authorizes commissioner of revenue to estimate sales and use tax liability and penalty when taxpayer fails to file a return or files a grossly false return.
* Code of Georgia, section 48-8-52. Requires taxpayers to keep suitable records of sales and purchases.
Then there is the jurisprudence….
Anderson v. Blackmon , 123 Ga. App. 128, 179 S.E. 2d 657, CCH-STATE-CASE-APP-CT, (Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3., Dec. 3, 1970). Authorized commissioner to estimate sales tax liability when taxpayers records were insufficient.
So there you have it.
The FT and GA law both require individuals to pay tax……to keep records……..to be subject to audit…….to PROVE taxes were paid via receipts………to have the burden of evidence……AND these powers have been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Next up?
Why are you letting facts get in the way of a good book-selling tour?
I leave for the morning and there are over 100 posts when I return! I haven’t read any of them because I summed up entire thread yesterday.
Nothing to see here folks, move along!
Ah and to think I called you brilliant somewhere up there.
That would have been more effective if it was laced with gratuitous profanity.
DD – you are f#$&ing brilliant!
Indy – That’s sweet but you obviously don’t know me or were you being sarcastic?
So you are telling me that your brilliance was a “blind hog found an acorn” moment?
sure. whatever that means.
I go to lunch and this gets amusing…typical.
D/s on PP. Who knew? Don’t dismiss those ‘Tin foil hats’ just yet— Go ahead and google ‘S Quad Iraq”
Seems like somebody was intent on baiting folks who believe in the FT. Shameful, simply shameful. Eyes rollling.
Let’s see now….
Go to Google Earth.
Pull up a picture of your house.
Is there a new pool, patio, garage building, or anything valuable in sight?
Property tax assessors have used satellite imagery for the last decade to catch cheats….now you will have FT snoops in the sky.
This is an exchange that will happen….
“Mr. Bassinger, we see you have a new pool in your yard. Please show us the receipts………..so, you swapped your repair skills for the poolman’s construction, eh? ……Here are your bills……The first is $8500 for the use tax on the pool and the second is the sales tax you were required to collect from Mr. Poolman…..BTW, where does he live?”
Could someome please change the things back the way they use to be? I hate searching for little yellow tabs (not to be confused with the little yellow faces
) everytime someone comments.
Why?
Is it too TAXING?
It’s plain UN – “Fair” !
It will make her SWEAR IN all her posts.
A double reference to both Kellie and Paul Broun.
This “hide and seek” game has to stop. Twice now I have looked for “new” comments on here and I haven’t found them.
%^$%^$&##$##$%^!!!!!!
%^$%^$&##$##$%^!!!!!! indeed. Let me say it again.
%^$%^$&##$##$%^!!!!!!
%^$%^$&##$##$%^!!!!!!
Also, once you go back to page 1 of comments, there is link to go back to page 2.
This thread is the perfect demonstration of why those modifications are so %^$%^$&##$##$%^ ed up.
I think we can safely blame those wild and whacky “Bloggers” for this, Kellie.
I’ve read all the comments. Trust me, there’s nothing new in any of them. It’s a well-rehearsed dance – much like sex betwixt married folk.
speak for yourself Dash!
I’m sure it’s different when you cuss.
that’s priceless Dash!
Bill – I blame no Sunday alcohol sales. People are drinking way too much during the week while they are making adjustment to this blog when they should be drinking on the weekend.
Surely a sober person wouldn’t screw things up this badly.
So does this thread yet dare to dream? Has Huckabee (once again) Lost His Last Primary?
Under “Recent Comments” it had the number 6 next to this thread and yours was the only one I could find. Is someone trying to mess with me? LOL
You’ll just have to go through it from the beginning and re-read every comment to make sure it wasn’t one you missed. When you see the second page of comments, it marks all the new comments on page 1 as read. So you pretty much have no way to know what you haven’t read on the first page.
A Blind Hog Finds an Acorn for Kellie…
are you calling me a hog?
Wimmen!
LOL
You had to know that was coming.
If the hog finds an acorn and is found not to have a receipt as required by FT Sec. 509, wouldn’t he be better off to promptly lose it?
The acorn has the potential of becoming a full blown oak tree. Perhaps you have to pay taxes on the imputed income of all the wood it might one day generate.
It is said that every part of a hog is used except for the squeal, but even that is not true if Apple makes a MP4 recording it.
Only an Arkansas governor would try to tax a hog squeal.
Hey, Doug and Icarus!
Some news for youse guys: Now, instead of thinking about goat-effing, you can dream about eating them!
http://food.theatlantic.com/on-the-farm/the-growing-following-for-goat-meat.php
I get goat curry at a local Indian restaurant all the time. The meat is not the best, but it adds a great flavor to the curry.
Anyway, Kelly calls it goat %^$%^$&##$##$%^ing
Back on topic…
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2009-06-18-State_Revenue_Flash.pdf
Georgia income tax revenue was down nearly 21% in the 1st quarter versus last year.
I get goat curry at a local Indian restaurant all the time. The meat is not the best, but it adds a great flavor to the curry.
Oops, somehow this got appended to the wrong post.
Thats OK, even appropriate.
GA revenues got a goat farking.
The just-out flow of funds report shows that from the 4th quarter of 2007 to the 1st quarter of 2009, US households lost $14 trillion of their net worth.
Wanting a tax that decimates previously-taxed savings would add to the injury.
“The FT and GA law both require individuals to pay tax……to keep records……..to be subject to audit…….to PROVE taxes were paid via receipts………to have the burden of evidence……AND these powers have been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia.”
Section for the bill that definitions whose liability:
“(d) Liability for Tax-
(1) IN GENERAL- The person using or consuming taxable property or services in the United States is liable for the tax imposed by this section, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(2) EXCEPTION WHERE TAX PAID TO SELLER- A person using or consuming a taxable property or service in the United States is not liable for the tax imposed by this section if the person pays the tax to a person selling the taxable property or service and receives from such person a purchaser’s receipt within the meaning of section 510.”
However, the bill does not state that an individual is required to remit the tax if the seller does not included it on their invoice. The only two instances where a purchaser is required to remit the tax is for imports and if the purchaser provided the seller with a resale certificate then self consumes the property.
Btpull
You are right I had this problem with a car I bought at a dealer who made a mistake via using the wrong county sales tax. The State made me straighten out the mess a few years ago from a purchase made years prior. In fact I had already sold the car.
You need to reread the section you quoted.
It is quite a leap to get from a person being liable for the tax (purchaser IS in the event that the receipt show no tax) to their not having to file and remit.
Current Georgia law REQUIRES the purchaser to file and remit use tax when sales taxes are not charged on the invoice. Therefore your position is doubly unsound, since Georgia auditors will also be enforcing the FT concurrently with enforcing use taxes on untaxed goods.
Hmmmm……I am pretty sure there are a number of instances in which consumers/purchasers have to file and remit…..let me take a minute………………………….
Aha…here it is…
H.R. 25
SEC. 501. MONTHLY REPORTS AND PAYMENTS.
`(a) Tax Reports and Filing Dates-
`(1) IN GENERAL- On or before the 15th day of each month, each person who is–
`(A) liable to collect and remit the tax imposed by this subtitle by reason of section 103(a), or
`(B) liable to pay tax imposed by this subtitle which is not collected pursuant to section 103(a),
shall submit to the appropriate sales tax administering authority (in a form prescribed by the Secretary) a report relating to the previous calendar month.
`(2) CONTENTS OF REPORT- The report required under paragraph (1) shall set forth–
`(A) the gross payments referred to in section 101,
`(B) the tax collected under chapter 4 in connection with such payments,
`(C) the amount and type of any credit claimed, and
`(D) other information reasonably required by the Secretary or the sales tax administering authority for the administration, collection, and remittance of the tax imposed by this subtitle.
`(b) Tax Payments Date-
`(1) GENERAL RULE- The tax imposed by this subtitle during any calendar month is due and shall be paid to the appropriate sales tax administering authority on or before the 15th day of the succeeding month. Both Federal tax imposed by this subtitle and confirming State sales tax (if any) shall be paid in 1 aggregate payment.
So there you have it TWICE.
One who is liable by virtue of buying tax free must file and remit.
WORSE, the last paragraph WELDS the FT to the existing power of Georgia to audit, assess, and even estimate liabilities.
WRONG.
There are far more than these two instances in which the purchaser has to pay the FT.
Governments have to pay it on their payroll for services provided to citizens.
Businesses have to self assess and pay the FT on goods and services for which they are final consumer.
People who barter services and goods have to pay on the Fair Market Value.
Besides, the state revenue departments already have the right to audit. You don’t really expect them to audit for the FT and SUT separately and to put blinders on when the FT has gone unpaid do you?
People who wrote THE BILL obviously knew a lot about sales and use taxation. The BILL is written with all elements of the State sales and use tax laws. If there are any holes, those are sealed shut by the welding of the FT to the existing SUT under Section 501.
The FT.org is a 501(c)3 whose present-day contributors are unknown. What IS known is that Enron, Shell Oil and other oil companies funded the initial “research,” paying the “experts” about $6 million. What is also known is that Big Oil alone has more than $50 billion in deferred income tax liabilities that FT passage would gift to them.
$50 billion in exchange for, say, $50 million, is a fantastic return.
MOST PREPOSTEROUS FT CLAIM OF THEM ALL – “The FT eliminates influence of special interests” Hell, the FT is the CREATION OF SPECIAL INTERESTS.
The FT cultists are living proof of just how dumb even the politically motivated in this country are.
No wonder the oligarchs are able to plunder 50 to 70% of the net worth of everyone reading these words without stirring up a revolution.
Once again the Fair Tax supporters are caught with no answers!
Why would anyone support this who understands the Fair Tax? Does not the IRS part being all BS not tell you the rest of this is pure junk?
“No onerous audits”
Audits can only be made against persons responsible for collection and remittance of taxes:
Such persons would already be required to keep records of those transactions, meaning the audit wouldn’t be burdensome at all.
No more records to keep
As explained in another comment, consumers are not required to keep their 509 receipts, only sellers and purchasers with an “intermediate and export sales” exemption.
The State Revenue laws already require that consumers keep recsipts, and file use tax returns. The FT collection and audit is done in conjunction with THESE existing state powers.
I cited chapter and verse, including court citations of the applicable Georgia law.
In YOUR citation the use of the words “persons…who MAY BE liable…..The FT citations show very clearly that a person who doesn’t have the 509 receipt is liable for the tax.
Besides, the FT extends to barter transactions, sole proprietors, and even governments who are not retailers, but consumers of their own taxable goods and services. Do I have to go and pull that up, too?
Have YOU paid the Georgia sales and use tax, filing the returns required by LAW are you just another tax evader looking for greater opportunity?
The existing powers of the state apply only to State Revenue. In collecting Federal Revenue, Federal Law will apply.
This is not true. The actual quote states:
Section 103 clearly points to who these people are:
The majority of these would already be keeping these records.
ec
What I do know is the State did make me not only straighten out the mess when I was charged the wrong county tax by a car dealer the state made me gather all documents.
You can spin it anyway you want but I have already seen the truth. Face it you fair Tax guys are living on Fantasy Island if you think the IRS goes away. And you guys still refuse to answer how the state could collect the tax from the federal government when they have a conflict of interest over tax lien position.
Sorry
…..the tax for the federal government….
JK, You have a good point about the relative lien position.
However, possession is 9/10ths of the law, and the feds have to pry the money away from the states.
The thing I see with ecw’s position is that – if you believe him – the state auditors could go in, assess a PURCHASER using all the tools in their possession to collect the Georgia and local taxes, but then just ignore the nonpayment of the FT.
How long could the US government stand for THAT?
Life ain’t fair tax (or something like that)
The reason that the purchaser is required to remit (by definition the purchaser does not ‘COLLECT’) in instances where tax was not charged is very simple. Without rights to audit both sides to the transaction, seller and purchaser, NO TAXES WILL BE PAID.
You are citing language pertaining to retailers without recognition of the very clear language elsewhere that says purchasers are liable for the tax.
Y0ur position is that language that relates to the retailer excludes LIABILITY from the purchaser and H.R. 25 is very clear that liability extends to BOTH, just as it does with the sales and USE tax of the states.
As for splitting hairs about the laws of GEORGIA not applying to state auditors auditing the FT, are you REALLY so gullible as to think they won’t audit both at the same time and use every tool at their disposal to assess tax? – Especially since the FT makes it plain that LIABILITY lies with the purchaser?
H.R. 25
So there you have the requirement to file returns, pay the FT, and pay in IN ONE PAYMENT with the state. This makes the upstream audit of the payment include both.
Now to the conditions that create LIABILITY in 103(a)
So the Tax liability outside of 103(a), which relates to Seller Collections and remittnances, falls within the remainder of SECTION 103, which encompasses untaxed purchases by business (that would include sole Proprietors – INDIVIDUALS) that become consumed by the business, government, or proprietor or are part of a barter transaction.
I am trying to inform readers here about how use tax works, so please be patient. Section 103 of the FT works exactly in the same fashion as Georgia and other states apply Use tax.
The sales tax and use tax are mirror images of each other. The use tax applies when the sales tax has not be charged on a taxable invoice. Without use tax, purchases would be governed by the F.O.B. point of the transaction and all sale F.O.B. points would gravitate to a state like Oregon that has no sales tax. This is where the use tax comes in. The use tax applies upon first use in the state, so the purchaser has to pay the tax.
To argue that the purchaser cannot be audited and assessed would mean that all manner of taxable SERVICES could be transacted over the internet in offshore FT havens. To argue that the purchaser cannot be audited gives him carte blanche permission to import untaxed merchandise, or buy it under an exemption certificate, then convert it to his personal use.
If you allow that – the FT and Georgia law doesn’t – you have NO TAX SYSTEM, for EVERYONE then becomes an exempt business and by your standard, the government cannot audit them.
Good luck convincing anyone of that.
Look, you FTers have been exposed and no amount of nit picking and word games are going to change that.
ecw,
You seem to use “collect” strictly as meaning to aggregate tax liabilities of others by a retailer, but “collect” can also encompass including oneself in that aggregation and accumulation of taxes before they are paid.
Purchasers who give away their goods and services or use them in their own operations BECOME the consumer and “collect” the tax from themselves and their employees.
Purchasers accrue use tax liabilities in their accounting systems (collecting them)and remit them. They also have to pay the taxes if they give away untaxed products to employees.
Indy
I deal with the lien position concept in my business a lot and it is every man for himself! And the Fed and the State are competitors with all of us on the money not allies. He who files first usually ends up the winnings!
And this is why the Fair taxes’ like ecwood logic is so out of whack if they think the IRS would go away. Also if you followed ecwood logic why would the federal government ever allow the state to collect for them beyond my point about lien position and allow the state to use “all the tools in their possession to collect the Georgia and local taxes, but then just ignore the nonpayment of the FT”? As I said once people find out about this being all BS it could hurt candidates that support it.
The real plan is close to a 44% point of sales tax with the IRS all over hurting small business and driving a huge black market! That does not include the cost of needing a larger IRS!
…First, the 23 percent figure is disingenuous. If the current price of a widget is $1, a 30-cent sales tax would be added at the register under the FairTax. Because 30 cents is 23 percent of $1.30, backers of the tax claim that the tax rate is 23 percent. In addition, to make the claim that the tax would bring the same amount of money into the Treasury, FairTax proponents assume that the government is paying tax to itself on its purchases.
The Presidents’ Advisory Panel on Tax Reform — that’s President Bush’s tax panel — calculated that the rate would have to be at least 34 percent, not 30 percent, “and likely higher over time if the base erodes, creating incentives for significant tax evasion.” Brookings Institution economist William Gale puts the rate at 44 percent — and his calculation doesn’t take into account cheating, for which there would be ample incentive.
Furthermore, the 30 percent rate assumes that the tax would be imposed on a broad range of goods and services that has no precedent — putting a hefty and politically implausible extra tax bite on purchases of new homes, rent, food, health insurance, medical care and mortgage interest. ….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123001909.html
BTW it is real bizarre that Neal Boortz as a lawyer would of not thought about this.
It is even more bizarre that the FT could cost Boortz, in particular, more than the income tax.
Indy,
The way the bill reads it clearly intends to have businesses collect and remit the tax. As long as the tax is on the receipt the business is also liable for the tax, which is good news; the gov cannot come after you for the tax on your automobile purchase if the dealer does not remit the tax, for example. Did you notice businesses are also give an administrative credit for the cost of collection and remittance?
From a practical stand point as an individual consumer the only time you’d have to worry about being liable and having to remit the tax is from a large overseas purchase. So import your $100K Porsche before this passes.
By the way when was the last time you were as a consumer or someone you know as a consumer was audited for not remitting use tax on internet purchases by the state of Georgia. Overall this issue is somewhat of a red herring.
I think you also mentioned something about deferred income tax liabilities. Deferred income tax liabilities are merely accounting constructs that adjust reported financial accounting income for timing difference between deducting expenses for financial income verses taxable income. The liability is to future reported financial income and not to the IRS.
The way the bill reads it clearly intends to have businesses collect and remit the tax.
Then explain why is CLEARLY STATES that the consumer/purchaser is liable for the tax.
the gov cannot come after you for the tax on your automobile purchase if the dealer does not remit the tax, for example.
Not as long as the tax was on the invoice and you have the invoice. If the dealer collected from you, then the liability is on him.
If you buy a car kit including tax and a mechanic assembles it for you with no tax charged, the state can assess you.
If you smuggle the car in without paying the tax, the state can assess you.
From a practical stand point as an individual consumer the only time you’d have to worry about being liable and having to remit the tax is from a large overseas purchase.
Not true. If you are a day trader and all brokerage services move offshore – they WILL – then the state will audit you for unpaid taxes on these taxable financial intermediation services.
If you are have a part-time business they can audit you. They can audit you to make sure that the new pool or deck was not a barter transaction.
Remember you are converting the overwhelming share of tax revenues to a sales tax at VERY HIGH rates……in excess of 44% combined SUT and FT…. so you are ONE STOP SHOPPING for tax auditors and governments totally dependent upon that sales tax revenue.
When have you known tax auditors to have powers and leave them idle?
By the way when was the last time you were as a consumer or someone you know as a consumer was audited for not remitting use tax on internet purchases by the state of Georgia.
Last week!
The state routinely audits large consumers on a revolving 3 year basis for use tax. Individuals get it too.
The liability is to future reported financial income and not to the IRS.
Totally wrong. The LIABILITY is generated by past income and is deferred because of accelerated depreciation. These are liabilities OWED to be paid in the future.
FT passage gives away a $trillion that Ma and Pa have to make up for.
Correct states audit LARGE Companies for Sales and Use Tax. I had a job with a large corporation in the ’90’s where I represented the company in sales and use tax audits on the purchase end. States go after the larger companies based on effort and potential benefit; they would use findings in our audits as leads to go after smaller companies. It is not worth a State’s time to go after individuals.
http://theartlawblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/kozlowski-sales-tax-deal.html
Dennis Kozlowski, the jailed former Tyco CEO, has agreed to pay approximately $3 million in sales tax, interest, and penalties to avoid further prosecution.
Maybe they need to start.
I disagree that it is not worth a State’s time to go after individuals. In the late 80’s California assessed use tax of about $90,000 against a yacht owner who was forced by a hurricane to move his boat to San Diego from Baja.
I have encountered individuals who owed $tens of thousands in use tax.
With Georgia $3 billion in the hole, don’t think they won’t, especially if the Dems go back in.
“Totally wrong. The LIABILITY is generated by past income and is deferred because of accelerated depreciation. These are liabilities OWED to be paid in the future.”
Again the liability is to who? Companies pay their income taxes to the IRS based on the tax return for the year just like you do an individual. Deferred Income Liabilities and Deferred Income Tax Assets (it can go the other way) are fictitious. Nether meet the true definition of an Asset or Liability.
Indy, this is not my position at all. Please go back and read what I’ve said. I’ve said numerous times that their are certain purchasers that are liable for the tax.
This has been my position.
In this comment you said that it is the consumers responsibility to keep their 509 receipts. It is not. It is the responsibility of 103(a)’s.
According to Sec 509(a), 103(a)’s are required to give all customers who pay tax a 509 receipt. According to Sec 508, 103(a)’s are required to keep a record of all 509 receipts. According to Sec 507(b), only 103’s can be audited.
I all say this because you make it seem as though anyone who goes to Walmart and buys a pack of hot dogs will need to keep his receipt (a 509 receipt) because he could be audited for it. This is not the case.
They can only audit you (for federal taxes) if you qualify as a 103.
I have never stated otherwise. But the problem with this is….?
The problem is that EVERYBODY can be in 103b if the tax wasn’t collected in 103a. SECTION 103 also contains c and d, which relate to untaxed purchases where the purchaser becomes end consumer or incurs the tax in a barter transaction.
If a 103(a) doesn’t collect the tax for any reason other than the purchaser having an intermediate and export sales exemption, and therefore doesn’t provide the purchaser with a 509 receipt, then they will be responsible for paying the tax. The consumer isn’t considered a 103(b).
What is the problem with c and d?
If the 103(a) is a foreign entity, he won’t collect or remit the tax, which triggers 103(b)(1) whereby the purchaser pays. When every services leaves the USA to avoid nexus, the audits of purchasers begins in earnest.
ECW,
BOTH have to keep receipts.
The language on this is clear.
I cited sections where the purchaser has to. You cited a section that relates to the duties of retailers.
Sales tax is a very unusual animal with joint liability. It is generally a tax on the consumer that the retailer has an ironclad duty to collect, in addition to the requirement of collecting from himself the use tax. However, ther revenuers can and DO collect from both on audit, if there is no communication.
Depends on the state. Some States view sales taxes as a liability of the purchasers. Therefore the purchaser has to pay the tax if the seller did not collect it and/or remit it. Other States view sales tax as a liability of the seller. Thus, the purchaser cannot be held accountable for the tax if the seller does not collect and/or remit it. The fair tax takes a hybrid approach. The purchaser’s liability is transferred to the seller once the seller includes it on the receipt.
The 17 or so states I have been familiar with ALL charge consumer use taxes and audit both sales and use taxes.
What country are your states in?
It is not a matter of having the retailers charge the sales tax, but rather a matter whose liability it is if the tax is not charged. There are issues of presence in a state. A company cannot charge sales tax to consumers in a state that it does not have a presence. If a state deems that a company has a presence and if the state holds the seller liable for the sales tax, they cannot hold the purchaser in the state responsible for the tax.
A company cannot charge sales tax to consumers in a state that it does not have a presence.
Sure it can. It is a simple matter of registering to collect and remit the tax. Some companies do it when they have occasional projects in a foreign state. I know some.
If a state deems that a company has a presence and if the state holds the seller liable for the sales tax, they cannot hold the purchaser in the state responsible for the tax.
They can and DO, if they audit the purchaser first. I have encountered instances where one audit caught the purchaser and another caught the seller.
Indy wrote,
“Sure it can. It is a simple matter of registering to collect and remit the tax. Some companies do it when they have occasional projects in a foreign state. I know some.”
Like I said it is a matter of presence in a State. Obviously in your example the companies have established a presence. Otherwise it is a violation of interstate commerce for a company or a more specifically a state to require a company which is foreign to that state to collect its sales tax.
If you purchase something from a 103(a), only the 103(a) is required to keep the 509 receipts, not the consumer.
If you:
1 Import a good from another country
2 Have a maid or butler or something similar
3 Purchase something with an intermediate and export sales exemption, but then consume it.
4 Barter new goods or services
Then you have to keep records. I have not claimed it to be any other way.
But what is the problem with this very small minority of people keeping records of a very small minority of their purchases? I don’t see the issue you raise in bringing this up.
Do you think it’s burdensome?
Do you think it proves the FT’ers wrong because they say that you won’t have to keep any more receipts? Perhaps you are correct on that last point, but it doesn’t prove that the FT is a bad thing.
ecwoodrow
Why do you think a 44% tax rate is smart at the point of sale? Also please us understand why the federal government would let the state collect on tax revenue when they have a conflict of interest on lien position? And if the Federal government cannot use the state why would the IRS go away?
I have made this point numerous times and all you do is avoid the point WHY?
sorry
…Also please help us understand…
You know, JK, your lien question is absolutely pertinent. The states are desparate for revenue, so they would put their interests first in assessing and collecting the tax. If the state auditor sees that there are only enough funds to pay the state, wouldn’t the state quickly conclude every such audit after only auditing for SUT?
NO WAY the US Government allows itself to be held hostage by the 50 states.
“BOTH have to keep receipts.”
But Indy, I told you before I’m not going to spend MY money therefore I will pay NO tax. I’m going to show them!!
Put a 44% combined tax on the consumer, provide for exemptions, make all levels of government dependent upon taxation, and watch EVERYONE BECOME A BUSINESS.
Then watch the Revenuers use their rights to audit consumers.
Have you not noticed how numerous and aggressive the traffic cops are these days? Does a $3 billion deficit affect how tough the state is on relaxing ANY revenue stream?
If you purchase something from a 103(a), only the 103(a) is required to keep the 509 receipts, not the consumer.
Let’s see. In recent years financial services were 40% of the profits. Financial services are FTaxable at combined rates of 40%.
Brokerages move offshore.
Entertainment is online on offshore servers.
Communications systems go offshore.
Home design services go offshore.
Credit cards go offshore (They HAVE to because 3/4 of the interest they charge is Ftaxable.)
The providers of these taxable transactions are offshore and there is no Nexus. The CONSUMERS are on-shore and there are complete rights of audit and requirements to keep receipts showing tax.
The bills and funds transfers won’t show tax.
And y’all think the US and state governments are going to overlook $trillions in lost revenues recoverable by auditing individuals?
You guys are not considering the very essence of tax systems – the common elements in every single one – when it comes to the FT.
NOt only that, you ignore clear provisions giving rise to same kind of excesses the hated IRS practices.
200!
Dash, is that tax inclusive or exclusive?
Repetitive.
Yes, that is what the sales and use tax is.
They get you coming and going.
Sheesh, I hate this new format……
Me too!
Next Friday – the Intrepid PPunditeers discuss why Boortz will be at the front of the line begging for a FairTax exemption.
Next Friday can we have Tax Cheat Friday? We can discuss ways to avoid paying taxes under the “Fair” Tax.
Geez! If you don’t like the new format stop using the “reply” feature.
But it’s ok when I do it, I just want everyone else to stop.
Me too.
How else can we hide a comments somewhere on page 1, if we don’t use the reply feature?
Very enlightening. Some of your points are important to note. Are you happy with Georgia’s current tax system? Tennessee apparently has a $400 million dollar budget shortfall and want to bring back the state income tax. There must be some means of collecting revenue so the IRS must exist in some form or fashion under some other name.
“Brokerages move offshore.
Entertainment is online on offshore servers.
Communications systems go offshore.
Home design services go offshore.
Credit cards go offshore ”
Aren’t some of things and more going off shore anyway?
If we are already throwing $838 billion in a grand experiment to stimulate the economy then why not revamp the tax system? Its not like you cant go back to the old one.
Actually, Georgia’s system is not all that bad, aside from the fact that there are so many property tax exemptions that they have shifted to entire burden to residential property owners.
Georgia just did a very strange thing……2 years ago the leadership tried to pass a sales tax that did away with all exemptions, only to turn into a cornucopia of exemptions this year just in time for a $3 billion budget.
As for tax reform, the USA has transformed itself into a service and consumer-driven economy. so that putting a 44% combined sales tax on services will drive these activities into the dirt.
Every service that can be offshored WILL.
That kind of ECONOMIC reaction is not what tax reform needs, for it will gut the tax base and the economy.
Folks like me stand ready to take advantage of these trends the instant that the FT passes.
Its not like you cant go back to the old one.
Exxon Mobil and others with an aggregate of more $1 trillion in owed back taxes thank you very much for saving them that $trillion the instant the FT passes. After that they have pulled a heist for the ages….
Next question?
“Actually, Georgia’s system is not all that bad, aside from the fact that there are so many property tax exemptions that they have shifted to entire burden to residential property owners.”
Then income tax is not part of that burden. The tax I paid on a vehicle that was given as a gift but a transaction was made through a internet auto sales in North Carolina. The vehicle title an registration never left the state. I believe Georgia;s tax system is pretty bad. Maybe its just the way we look at it.
“Exxon Mobil and others with an aggregate of more $1 trillion in owed back taxes thank you very much for saving them that $trillion the instant the FT passes. After that they have pulled a heist for the ages”
Lets not forget the tax exemptuions given to industry to come to Georiga like the Busch plant in Cartersville, The KIA plant, the freeport exemptions, etc to keep industry in Georgia. If taxes are not the problem in Georgia then why are they offering incentives with tax?
If you intend to take advantage of trends Fairtax could offer.. Would you mind if I took advantage of it too?
The exemptions came just in time for a $3 billion state budget deficit.
Would you mind if I took advantage of it too?
Absolutely not.
Hey, I am prepared to capitalize on it the instant it passes.
My stance here is just exposing the fact that it does the exact opposite of what is being pitched and I hate grand deceptions more than I enjoy making money.
The people who least can afford the FT are the ones clamoring for it.
I dont have any grand illusions about Fair Tax but I understand that it is those who work and pay taxes that are burdened. I and illegal immigrants working under a bogus social security number have something in common. Neither of us will see a dime of what we paid in. One less deduction from my paycheck will help me more than a bailout for AIG or whatever der government thinks is best for my money. To pretend there is not a tax issue in this country is probably a bigger deception. The deception that either a democrat or republican or libertarian is acting in our best interests is probably another illusion. If you believe a tax system set up with a loophole for whomever can afford the best lobbyist is good then the deception is working. Freeing the tax burden on the individual worker is the only stimulus this country needs.
Indy or John –
My thoughts lately are that services will be taxed by the end of Obama’s term to help pay for his massive spending and heathcare. What are your thoughts?
barryc,
I am with you all the way.
A sales tax might seem to be paid by everybody, but as we have shown, almost nobody on PP pays it 100%. If tax evasion is universal at a 7% rate, what happens at a 44% rate?
Is am illegal working off the books under an income tax system going to suddenly start working on the books under a sales tax system?
Goods can be imported free of the FT, but the FT puts nearly zero controls after goods are disbursed from the port. At a 44% rate how much of it will find a taxed destination?
Cut spending.
Charge tariffs.
Institute a flat tax.
Enforce it.
No need to stop the spending when they can just take more from us, huh?
Funny that the VAT is being promoted as a National Sales Tax. They know people are too lazy or stupid to figure out that it is not the NST they’ve been hearing about all these years, aka the Fair Tax.
We have to run everyone out of DC.
I think tariffs should only be charged on abusive violators like China and Mexico. But if we do that we must stop the subsidies especially in agriculture business.
As far as spending cuts the failed WAR ON DRUGS is a great place! We could make tax revenue on marijuana and decimalize hard drugs. This could cut our prison population by more than 50%. It would put a big hurt on gangs and terrorist by killing the major fuel behind them ie drug money. And it would create more tax payers by decimalizing drug users and letting them work instead of doing time on our dollar.
And if we did really institute a non-write off system like the Flat Tax it would put a major blow to lobbyist over the fight for special write offs and public spending programs.
Kellie,
Obama or Bush it makes no difference.
Yes, they will tax services.
Thanks to our FairTax cultists, a Value Added Tax is a certainty. The VAT enthusiasts even harken to the national sales tax movement. The VAT will tax services.
Obama not only will tax services, he will pass a net worth tax.
The bond markets are balking at financing deficits and stimulus.
Tax revenues are falling 35%.
Where else are they going to get the money?
The IRS and revenuers are the only growth industries left.
A business on a foreign shore wouldn’t be considered a 103(a).
What services would be able to operate offshore (without having a physical presence in the US)?
Of those able to operate offshore, how many of them can afford to move?
For those that do move offshore and operate w/o a physical presence, wouldn’t they lose business by operating illegally in the US to those organizations that were operating legally?
This is not the tax rate. The actual tax rate is 23% inc (30% exc).
As with all other “The Feds wouldn’t let the FT happen” comments, you’re right. They won’t. Which is why it has to be forced by overwhelming support for it.
ecwoodrow
You are a typical Fair Tax supporter who just ignores the real facts and chants on with blind allegiance to a cult.
You should be embarrassed by your response after all the FACTS we gave you!
And what was wrong with my response?
You are joking? Read the thread again without your cult blinders on!
John,
Not everybody who supports the fairtax has blinders on. Some just need to understand why they are misinformed. Dial it back, trade information, and let those who are at least willing to engage state their case. He asked what’s wrong with his questions/assumptions. Tell him.
They’re not wearing blinders, they’re wearing stickers! I took mine off. Probably shouldn’t have put them over my eyes anyhow.
A business on a foreign shore wouldn’t be considered a 103(a).
By you, or H.R. 25? Show me where in H.R. 25 the US government is going to give carte blanche exemption to foreign entities selling in the USA. The situation is analgous to Georgia admitting that a SC vendor has no taxable nexus, when they are straining every legal device to CREATE nexus.
What services would be able to operate offshore (without having a physical presence in the US)?
The FT treats excess interest as a taxable financial service. Credit card interest, bank service charges, brokerage charges, real estate points at closing – all of these become subject to combined state and local taxes of 44% and will move offshore.
Medical tourism thrives now, but simply explodes under the FT. If one saves 40% now by going to Tijuana or India for treatment this will go to 70%. In this case the service would actually happen offshore.
3/4 of credit card interest would be Ftaxed. (The FT destroys buying on credit in multiple ways – but that is a topic to itself.) The entire CC inductry goes offshore.
This is not the tax rate. The actual tax rate is 23% inc (30% exc).
Not really. The FT org’s consultant rescored it in 2005 and found that the exclusive rate would have to be as high as 26% (34% exclusive) as Linde admitted in his C-Span interview. Add to this a state rate of 12% – I got this from a now-retired GA revenue department official and it corelates well with the FT.org own figures.
A combined FT rate would be between 39 and 46%, tax exclusive for SUT and FT.
MIND YOU, these rates figure ZERO tax evasion and that financial services WON’T flee the country to avoid this tax. The rates also are based upon the FT being paid on all government purchases.
The only way the FTers could get the rate below 60% without taxing businesses, like the states have to, was to tax government.
Go read how the FTers came up with the rate and you see that these things are true.
PP desperately needs an edit feature….
This is not the tax rate. The actual tax rate is 23% inc (30% exc).
Not really. The FT org’s consultant rescored it in 2005 and found that the exclusive rate would have to be as high as 26% (34% exclusive) as Linde admitted in his C-Span interview. Add to this a state rate of 12% – I got this from a now-retired GA revenue department official and it corelates well with the FT.org own figures.
A combined FT rate would be between 39 and 46%, tax exclusive for SUT and FT.
MIND YOU, these rates figure ZERO tax evasion and that financial services WON’T flee the country to avoid this tax. The rates also are based upon the FT being paid on all government purchases.
The only way the FTers could get the rate below 60% without taxing businesses, like the states have to, was to tax government.
Go read how the FTers came up with the rate and you see that these things are true.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.