|
#3
| |||
| |||
| D. Stussy wrote: - quote - > "Alan" <sfcnm-mtm[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
prevents a state from collecting use tax on purchases over the> news:mH1jl.12570$D32.7606[at]flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com... > > D. Stussy wrote: > > > "John H. Fisher" <TaxService[at]aol.com> wrote in message > > > news:de2f2197-f030-49cf-a098-3d6c95a73609[at]d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > CCH Tax News Headlines - February 5, 2009 > > > > Federal Headlines: - > > > http://tax.cchgroup.com/news/headlin.../nws2209.htm#1 > > > > ... > > > > State Headlines: > > > > > > > 2/5/2009 - Connecticut --Sales and Use Tax: Legislation Introduced > > > > That Would Tax Certain Internet Sales > > > > 2/5/2009 - Hawaii --Sales and Use Tax: Bill Proposing to Tax Some > > > > Internet Sales Introduced > > > Aren't these already federally preempted? > > > > The State are pushing the envelope in how they define nexus. See > > the below link on New York's "Amazon Law", that other states are > > trying to emulate. > > http://www.kiplinger.com/businessres...aw_080513.html > The California Board of Equalization tried to do that - by "searching" > package delivery companies (e.g. United Parcel Service) for out-of-state > arrivals, and were stopped on the grounds it violated the Interstate > Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Not only do I not see anything > different here, Congress has passed laws that specifically PREVENT any tax > from being imposed just because the transaction took place over the > Internet. Although "NY's Amazon" law also affects phone orders, the two > items above specifically target the Internet. Under the 10th amendment, > since Congress has already acted, why wouldn't these be pre-empted? I am not aware of any federal court decision or federal law that internet if they are able to show substantial nexus consistent with the USSC decision QUILL CORP. v. HEITKAMP, 504 U.S. 298 (1992). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=504&invol=298 What the states are now trying to do is establish that nexus. You are going to have come up with that federal law that you say Congress passed. I'm not aware of it. -- << ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- > |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| "Alan" <sfcnm-mtm[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mH1jl.12570$D32.7606[at]flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com... - quote - > D. Stussy wrote: > > "John H. Fisher" <TaxService[at]aol.com> wrote in message > news:de2f2197-f030-49cf-a098-3d6c95a73609[at]d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > CCH Tax News Headlines - February 5, 2009 > > > Federal Headlines: - > > http://tax.cchgroup.com/news/headlin.../nws2209.htm#1 > > > ... > > > State Headlines: > > > > > 2/5/2009 - Connecticut --Sales and Use Tax: Legislation Introduced > > > That Would Tax Certain Internet Sales > > > 2/5/2009 - Hawaii --Sales and Use Tax: Bill Proposing to Tax Some > > > Internet Sales Introduced > > > Aren't these already federally preempted? > > The State are pushing the envelope in how they define nexus. See > the below link on New York's "Amazon Law", that other states are > trying to emulate. http://www.kiplinger.com/businessres...aw_080513.html The California Board of Equalization tried to do that - by "searching" package delivery companies (e.g. United Parcel Service) for out-of-state arrivals, and were stopped on the grounds it violated the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Not only do I not see anything different here, Congress has passed laws that specifically PREVENT any tax from being imposed just because the transaction took place over the Internet. Although "NY's Amazon" law also affects phone orders, the two items above specifically target the Internet. Under the 10th amendment, since Congress has already acted, why wouldn't these be pre-empted? -- << ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- > |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
| D. Stussy wrote: - quote - > "John H. Fisher" <TaxService[at]aol.com> wrote in message
the below link on New York's "Amazon Law", that other states are> news:de2f2197-f030-49cf-a098-3d6c95a73609[at]d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > CCH Tax News Headlines - February 5, 2009 > > Federal Headlines: - > http://tax.cchgroup.com/news/headlin.../nws2209.htm#1 > > ... > > State Headlines: > > > 2/5/2009 - Connecticut --Sales and Use Tax: Legislation Introduced > > That Would Tax Certain Internet Sales > > 2/5/2009 - Hawaii --Sales and Use Tax: Bill Proposing to Tax Some > > Internet Sales Introduced > Aren't these already federally preempted? The State are pushing the envelope in how they define nexus. See trying to emulate. http://www.kiplinger.com/businessres...aw_080513.html -- << ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- > |
| | |||
| |||
| "John H. Fisher" <TaxService[at]aol.com> wrote in message news:de2f2197-f030-49cf-a098-3d6c95a73609[at]d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... - quote - > CCH Tax News Headlines - February 5, 2009
Aren't these already federally preempted?> Federal Headlines: - http://tax.cchgroup.com/news/headlin.../nws2209.htm#1 > ... > State Headlines: > 2/5/2009 - Connecticut --Sales and Use Tax: Legislation Introduced > That Would Tax Certain Internet Sales > 2/5/2009 - Hawaii --Sales and Use Tax: Bill Proposing to Tax Some > Internet Sales Introduced -- << ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- > |
|
#-1
| |||
| |||
| CCH Tax News Headlines - February 5, 2009 Federal Headlines: - http://tax.cchgroup.com/news/headlin.../nws2209.htm#1 2/5/2009 - Senate Approves $15,000 Homebuyers Tax Credit 2/5/2009 - President Signs SCHIP Bill Funded by Increase in Tobacco Excise Tax 2/5/2009 - Expenses Related to Storage of Manufactured Homes; Capitalization Required (Load, Inc., CA-9) 2/5/2009 - Noncompetition Agreement Payment Was Ordinary Income, Not Capital Gain from Sale of Personal Goodwill (Muskat, CA-1) State Headlines: 2/5/2009 - Connecticut --Sales and Use Tax: Legislation Introduced That Would Tax Certain Internet Sales 2/5/2009 - Hawaii --Sales and Use Tax: Bill Proposing to Tax Some Internet Sales Introduced 2/5/2009 - Pennsylvania --Multiple Taxes: Budget Proposal Would Create New Taxes, Raise Tobacco Tax Missed a headline? Click here for last week's tax highlights. - http://tax.cchgroup.com/NewsHeadline...t.asp?PageID=4 -- << ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- > |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | Last Post | |
| CCH Tax News Headlines - January 4, 2009 John H. Fisher: CCH Tax News Headlines - January 4, 2009 Federal Headlines: - http://tax.cchgroup.com/news/headlines/2009/nws2409.htm#1 2/4/2009 - Hollywood... | Taxes | 0 | 02-04-2009 09:58 PM | |
| CCH Tax News Headlines - December 29, 2008 John H. Fisher: CCH Tax News Headlines - December 29, 2008 Federal Headlines: - http://tax.cchgroup.com/news/headlines/2008/nws122908.htm#1 12/29/2008 - IRS... | Taxes | 6 | 12-30-2008 07:42 PM | |
| CCH TAX NEWS for February 2, 2007 John H. Fisher: CCH TAX NEWS for February 2, 2007 FEDERAL NEWS Senate Overwhelmingly Approves Minimum Wage, Tax Measure... | Taxes | 1 | 02-03-2007 06:14 AM | |
| CCH TAX NEWS for February 28, 2006 John H. Fisher: CCH TAX NEWS for February 28, 2006 FEDERAL NEWS IRS Denies California Domestic Partner's Right to Report Only One-Half Combined Earned... | Taxes | 1 | 03-01-2006 07:56 AM | |
| Still can't open news headlines in MS Money Chuck Leven: The links to the headline news items on the home page of MS Money 2004 Deluxe stopped working late last week and still don't work. Is anyone else... | Microsoft Money | 4 | 11-21-2005 08:34 PM | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |