Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Local taxes in the USA - tourist regulations

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:26:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'll be visiting the USA in 2 months time and will be buying 2 or 3 decent
lenses - the low US$ is a great thing for some of us. :o )

I was after a little guidance on the issue of local taxes, particularly in
California, where I'm likely to do the shopping. Are there taxes applied to
camera kit that a tourist can get avoid/get back if he follows certain
rules or produces certain documents are the airport when he leaves?

--
The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:26:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Derek Fountain wrote:
> I'll be visiting the USA in 2 months time and will be buying 2 or 3
> decent lenses - the low US$ is a great thing for some of us. :o )
>
> I was after a little guidance on the issue of local taxes,
> particularly in California, where I'm likely to do the shopping. Are
> there taxes applied to camera kit that a tourist can get avoid/get
> back if he follows certain rules or produces certain documents are
> the airport when he leaves?

Local sales tax in the US, unlike VAT in many EU countries, is State
based so it is not exactly the same from state to state and some states have
none at all. It can even have different rates in different cities.

It is fundamentally different in that it is a (retail) sales tax so it
attaches at the time of the sale and is based on the sale. In general it
will not be attached to sales to out of the US. However to qualify you
generally have to have the product shipped out of the US and can not take
delivery in the US. Some states also have a use tax, but that should not
generally apply to you as it applies to new property brought in or shipped
into the state for use in that state.

I don't have the specifics of the California tax, but I suspect you can
find information on the state web site.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:26:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:51 +0800, Derek Fountain
<nospam@example.com> wrote:

>I'll be visiting the USA in 2 months time and will be buying 2 or 3 decent
>lenses - the low US$ is a great thing for some of us. :o )
>
>I was after a little guidance on the issue of local taxes, particularly in
>California, where I'm likely to do the shopping. Are there taxes applied to
>camera kit that a tourist can get avoid/get back if he follows certain
>rules or produces certain documents are the airport when he leaves?

Most states aren't geared up for the refund of sales tax to non
residents at all. If you are going to buy in California then you are
probably going to have to pay the sales tax. Some states, Oregon comes
to mind, don't have any sales tax. You won't find any booths at the
airports for the refund of sales tax like the VAT refund in the U.K.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:26:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Derek Fountain wrote:
> I'll be visiting the USA in 2 months time and will be buying 2 or 3 decent
> lenses - the low US$ is a great thing for some of us. :o )
>
> I was after a little guidance on the issue of local taxes, particularly in
> California, where I'm likely to do the shopping. Are there taxes applied to
> camera kit that a tourist can get avoid/get back if he follows certain
> rules or produces certain documents are the airport when he leaves?
>
Yes. If you buy at a 'duty free' shop in an airport, you can save the
state tax, and I believe, the federal excise tax. You may find this
limits your choice of cameras, however.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:26:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Derek Fountain" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
news:42194517$0$483$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> I'll be visiting the USA in 2 months time and will be buying 2 or 3 decent
> lenses - the low US$ is a great thing for some of us. :o )
>
> I was after a little guidance on the issue of local taxes, particularly in
> California, where I'm likely to do the shopping. Are there taxes applied
> to
> camera kit that a tourist can get avoid/get back if he follows certain
> rules or produces certain documents are the airport when he leaves?

No states in the US refund taxes to out-of-country residents. However, you
can avoid state taxes by having the camera shipped to a different state,
e.g. if you're going to visit New York and California, buy the camera in New
York and have it shipped to your hotel in California. I don't know for
certain whether this will work if you have the camera shipped out of the US.
However, if you take possession of the camera, you'll have to pay the going
state and municipal tax. Depending on where your are in California, it can
approach 9%.


>
> --
> The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
> http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
> href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:26:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

And he'll find that state sales taxes are not totally state based.
Localities are allowed to add their own little riders--in CA, sales
taxes range from 7-1/4% to 8-3/4%.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 1:26:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 2/20/05 8:52 PM, in article O1cSd.43388$XY5.2846@fe2.columbus.rr.com,
"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Derek Fountain wrote:
>> I'll be visiting the USA in 2 months time and will be buying 2 or 3
>> decent lenses - the low US$ is a great thing for some of us. :o )
>>
>> I was after a little guidance on the issue of local taxes,
>> particularly in California, where I'm likely to do the shopping. Are
>> there taxes applied to camera kit that a tourist can get avoid/get
>> back if he follows certain rules or produces certain documents are
>> the airport when he leaves?
>
> Local sales tax in the US, unlike VAT in many EU countries, is State
> based so it is not exactly the same from state to state and some states have
> none at all. It can even have different rates in different cities.
>
> It is fundamentally different in that it is a (retail) sales tax so it
> attaches at the time of the sale and is based on the sale. In general it
> will not be attached to sales to out of the US. However to qualify you
> generally have to have the product shipped out of the US and can not take
> delivery in the US. Some states also have a use tax, but that should not
> generally apply to you as it applies to new property brought in or shipped
> into the state for use in that state.
>
> I don't have the specifics of the California tax, but I suspect you can
> find information on the state web site.

The following web site lists the tax rates in all US States:
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/tax_stru.html
Specifically, on their the home page, click on the third item listed under
the Sales Taxes. California, for example, has a state sales tax of 6% and
local jurisdictions can add up to another 2.75%. So the maximum sales tax
that you would find in California would be 8.75%. As stated above if you
are physically in a state (even if you don't live there) and take physical
possession of the purchased item in that state you have to pay the sales
tax.
Chuck
February 21, 2005 1:26:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1108963134.cfe4cbba913bd4cade6fac4c5da6a2a4@teranews>,
cluelessweasel@hotmail.com says...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:26:51 +0800, Derek Fountain
> <nospam@example.com> wrote:
>
> >I'll be visiting the USA in 2 months time and will be buying 2 or 3 decent
> >lenses - the low US$ is a great thing for some of us. :o )
> >
> >I was after a little guidance on the issue of local taxes, particularly in
> >California, where I'm likely to do the shopping. Are there taxes applied to
> >camera kit that a tourist can get avoid/get back if he follows certain
> >rules or produces certain documents are the airport when he leaves?
>
> Most states aren't geared up for the refund of sales tax to non
> residents at all. If you are going to buy in California then you are
> probably going to have to pay the sales tax. Some states, Oregon comes
> to mind, don't have any sales tax. You won't find any booths at the
> airports for the refund of sales tax like the VAT refund in the U.K.
>

I didn't see the original post here, but Ill jump in anyway.

In the States that have sales tax, you pay the tax. Residency doesn't
matter, location does. If you are IN the state and make the purchase, you
pay the tax.


This is so in every state I have done transactions in (about 12 California
among them) that collect a sales tax.

I happen to live in Connecticut (for you geographicly challenged, near New
York on the right hand side, up near the top of the states).

Rhode Island is a neighboring state and it doesn't tax some items as high as
Connecticut does.. A twenty minute ride for me to get to Rhode Island, where
I could save BIG BUCKS on some items.. nifty huh??? Not quite. It is
illegal for me to do it and if I get caught doing it I can be incarcerated,
for up 15 years (tax evasion).

California has a similar law on the books. I haven't been there recently, so
I dont know if they do much to enforce it as Connecticut does.

TRUST ME, the States are SERIOUS about collecting their sales tax, and MOST
of them will only relent if you are a licensed dealer, buying for re-sale.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
February 21, 2005 1:26:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <syfSd.8644$2%5.1015@fe07.lga>, rphunter@charter.net says...
> Yes. If you buy at a 'duty free' shop in an airport, you can save the
> state tax, and I believe, the federal excise tax. You may find this
> limits your choice of cameras, however.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>

AND, it severly limits the likelyhood of finding a bargain. Since most stuff
sold at Airports in the US usually is sold for 50 to 65% ABOVE normal retail
(or even higher).

This MIGHT have changed (I havent flown in a LONG time) but it used to be so.

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 3:06:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42194517$0$483$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
nospam@example.com says...
> I'll be visiting the USA in 2 months time and will be buying 2 or 3 decent
> lenses - the low US$ is a great thing for some of us. :o )
>
> I was after a little guidance on the issue of local taxes, particularly in
> California, where I'm likely to do the shopping. Are there taxes applied to
> camera kit that a tourist can get avoid/get back if he follows certain
> rules or produces certain documents are the airport when he leaves?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: You're not paying a Value Added Tax, you're paying a local
sales tax. Even if the United States was as generous to refund a
portion of your taxes paid as a tourist, the US Customs Service, a
Federal agency, would have no authority or means to do so.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 3:08:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <DvgSd.2326$OU1.1961@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
ptravel@ruyitang.com says...
> However, you
> can avoid state taxes by having the camera shipped to a different state,
> e.g. if you're going to visit New York and California, buy the camera in New
> York and have it shipped to your hotel in California.

I don't know any reputable dealer that would ship to an unverified
address like a hotel - especially if you're paying by credit card.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 3:08:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:08:48 GMT, Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no>
wrote:

>In article <DvgSd.2326$OU1.1961@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>ptravel@ruyitang.com says...
>> However, you
>> can avoid state taxes by having the camera shipped to a different state,
>> e.g. if you're going to visit New York and California, buy the camera in New
>> York and have it shipped to your hotel in California.
>
>I don't know any reputable dealer that would ship to an unverified
>address like a hotel - especially if you're paying by credit card.

There are procedures that will allow merchants to do this - if they
really want the sale.
The CC holder contacts his CC bank, and lets them know about the
shipping address being different from the billiung address. Then, the
CC holder asks the seller to contact the bank to verify the new
shipping address; then all is OK.
This does require the seller to make the call, though, and some may
not want the added hassle.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 4:58:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:49:29 -0500, Larry <larrylynch3rd@comcast.net>
wrote:

<snip>
>Rhode Island is a neighboring state and it doesn't tax some items as high as
>Connecticut does.. A twenty minute ride for me to get to Rhode Island, where
>I could save BIG BUCKS on some items.. nifty huh??? Not quite. It is
>illegal for me to do it and if I get caught doing it I can be incarcerated,
>for up 15 years (tax evasion).

How do you imagine you would be 'caught' exactly?

>California has a similar law on the books. I haven't been there recently, so
>I dont know if they do much to enforce it as Connecticut does.

Then you know of people who've had this 'enforced' ?

>TRUST ME, the States are SERIOUS about collecting their sales tax, and MOST
>of them will only relent if you are a licensed dealer, buying for re-sale.

--
Owamanga!
February 21, 2005 5:24:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1hqj11527miuio8rd3ibps436antrqqv9f@4ax.com>, nomail@hotmail.com
says...
> How do you imagine you would be 'caught' exactly?
>
> >California has a similar law on the books. I haven't been there recently, so
> >I dont know if they do much to enforce it as Connecticut does.
>
> Then you know of people who've had this 'enforced' ?
>
> >TRUST ME, the States are SERIOUS about collecting their sales tax, and MOST
> >of them will only relent if you are a licensed dealer, buying for re-sale.
>
> --
> Owamanga!
>

There hasn't been any issue LATELY but a few years ago Connecticut State Law
Enforcement was sitting at the side of the road stopping people who had been
observered purchasing items just across the border.

I dont know ALL the details, but mostly they were stopping people who shopped
this way on a regular basis, and had not declered PREVIOUS purchases.

As for "probable cause" I dont know what the Police used for justification,
and since the last time it was on the news, Rhode Island has changed its tax
structure enough so I guess there is no advantage any longer.

I truly think the whole thing was STAGED for the TV news media, so people
would be aware of the law. BUT (and its a big BUT) They did do it, and they
CAN do it, any time you try to avoid paying state taxes. It IS the law,
though it is not always enforced.

This all took place in Connecticut several (maybe as much as 10) years ago.
Im sure a check with Channel 8 New Haven, Channel 3 Hartford, or Channel 30
(where ever it is lacated) would come up with specifics, it was ALL OVER the
news at the time, which is why I remember it.

For myself, the details are un-important, as most of my out of state shopping
is done on-line, and I pay whatever taxes are charged and dont worry about
it. However it would be untrue and unfair to say the states dont persue it,
because, from time to time, they do.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 5:45:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:
> Rhode Island is a neighboring state and it doesn't tax some items as
high as
> Connecticut does.. A twenty minute ride for me to get to Rhode
Island, where
> I could save BIG BUCKS on some items.. nifty huh??? Not quite. It is
> illegal for me to do it and if I get caught doing it I can be
incarcerated,
> for up 15 years (tax evasion).

Though here in the states, most everyone does it and it is
definitely not the reason our prisons are over-crowded.


--
--Bryan
February 21, 2005 5:45:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <NtmSd.2347$OU1.568@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
nameless@nowhere.org says...
> Though here in the states, most everyone does it and it is
> definitely not the reason our prisons are over-crowded.
>
>
> --
> --Bryan
>
>

Absolutely!!

But as I posted earlier.. It is the law and it is SOMETIMES enforced (and
causes some people a big PITA.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 6:52:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What I did was order from a store in say NY for delivery in another state
say NJ. If you order from out of state then there is no tax payable.

Well in my case anyway this is what happened.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 6:52:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:52:22 +0200, "Joel Dorfan"
<bdorfan@fred.icon.co.za> wrote:

>What I did was order from a store in say NY for delivery in another state
>say NJ. If you order from out of state then there is no tax payable.
>
>Well in my case anyway this is what happened.

All that happened is NY store didn't collect NY sales and use tax,
because the state law doesn't require them to do so in this situation.

Technically, you are supposed to declare the purchase in your home
state. The tax is sales *AND USE*, the 'and use' bit bites you in the
arse in most (if not all) states within the US.

So far, the only reason we can get away with this, is that the various
states are fairly incompetent at agreeing to either share purchasing
data, or levy taxes on behalf of other states for the global gain of
them all.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 7:43:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21 Feb 2005 in rec.photo.digital, Larry wrote:

> But as I posted earlier.. It is the law and it is SOMETIMES enforced
> (and causes some people a big PITA.

The several states enforce it when people do rock-in-a-box. It works
like this:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I live in New York and have a
summer place in Vermont. I want to buy a new D2X, which costs US$5,000.
Sales tax on that, from a store in New York City, would be $438. So at
the same time I buy a N55 body ($200) and have it shipped to Vermont (say
$20), and pay sales tax on it ($17). The shipping invoice indicates that
the D2X was the camera shipped. I walk out of the store with the D2X in
hand.
- I've saved $200, and may have a cheap film body waiting for me in
Vermont
- The store has made an extra sale
- The only one out money on this deal is the State of New York, which
doesn't collect the sales tax on the difference.

/This/ is what the states are more likely to go after you for. If memory
serves, a high end jewelry store in New York got nailed for it a few
years back.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 8:42:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:04:48 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:08:48 GMT, Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <DvgSd.2326$OU1.1961@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>>ptravel@ruyitang.com says...
>>> However, you
>>> can avoid state taxes by having the camera shipped to a different state,
>>> e.g. if you're going to visit New York and California, buy the camera in New
>>> York and have it shipped to your hotel in California.
>>
>>I don't know any reputable dealer that would ship to an unverified
>>address like a hotel - especially if you're paying by credit card.
>
>There are procedures that will allow merchants to do this - if they
>really want the sale.
>The CC holder contacts his CC bank, and lets them know about the
>shipping address being different from the billiung address. Then, the
>CC holder asks the seller to contact the bank to verify the new
>shipping address; then all is OK.
>This does require the seller to make the call, though, and some may
>not want the added hassle.

What added hassle?

The seller simply (electronically usually) requests mail-order
authorization on the card for this dollar amount for goods to be sent
to this address & zip. The computer either says 'yes' or 'no'.

If the card holder has previously added the new delivery address, the
computer should authorize the sale.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 10:13:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <cvcp4a$jn4$1@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, bdorfan@fred.icon.co.za
says...
> What I did was order from a store in say NY for delivery in another state
> say NJ. If you order from out of state then there is no tax payable.
>
> Well in my case anyway this is what happened.

Not quite. There is no tax payable in New York. You are required to
pay sales tax to New Jersey. Of course, New Jersey doesn't know what
New York is doing and vice versa, so they have almost no way of
enforcing the tax.

Now, if the entity you are dealing with maintains a physical presence in
New York AND New Jersey, then you have to pay sales tax no matter where
it's shipped from as long as it arrives in either of the two
jurisdictions.

Most states have reciprocity agreements on large items (cars, etc.) that
require some sort of registration. So, although you could buy such an
item in a reduced-tax or tax-free state, you still have to file and pay
state sales tax in order to register your vehicle.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 10:18:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1hqj11527miuio8rd3ibps436antrqqv9f@4ax.com>,
nomail@hotmail.com says...
> >Rhode Island is a neighboring state and it doesn't tax some items as high as
> >Connecticut does.. A twenty minute ride for me to get to Rhode Island, where
> >I could save BIG BUCKS on some items.. nifty huh??? Not quite. It is
> >illegal for me to do it and if I get caught doing it I can be incarcerated,
> >for up 15 years (tax evasion).
>
> How do you imagine you would be 'caught' exactly?

Well, he seems to be ignoring Supreme Court precedent that basically
does not allow states to enforce tariffs/penalties on goods imported
from other states.

You do have to pay sales tax on certain items bought out of state - but
only in order to receive proper licensing of those items. So, cars,
boats and other items must have sales tax paid to your state of
residence before you can legally use them. The registration is the only
method of enforcing the sales tax on out of state items as far as I
know. The Supreme Court threw out tax stamps and all other schemes a
while back.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
February 21, 2005 10:18:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c83fdfdb09071f98a636@news.verizon.net>, nospam@please.no
says...
> Well, he seems to be ignoring Supreme Court precedent that basically
> does not allow states to enforce tariffs/penalties on goods imported
> from other states.
>
> You do have to pay sales tax on certain items bought out of state - but
> only in order to receive proper licensing of those items. So, cars,
> boats and other items must have sales tax paid to your state of
> residence before you can legally use them. The registration is the only
> method of enforcing the sales tax on out of state items as far as I
> know. The Supreme Court threw out tax stamps and all other schemes a
> while back.
> --
>


Not ignoring it, just didn't know...Since I have no problem paying taxes when
taxes are due, I dont follow these things very closely. Unless that court
decision made the front page on one of the FEW days I actually read the
paper, it would be easy for me to not be aware of it.

I was simply trying to [oint out to the OP that the states do NOT easily
forgive "Sales/Use" tax. They will collect it any way they can.

If you see my earlier post, this all took place years ago, perhaps before the
SC decision...


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 11:11:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c83fdfdb09071f98a636@news.verizon.net...
> In article <1hqj11527miuio8rd3ibps436antrqqv9f@4ax.com>,

> Well, he seems to be ignoring Supreme Court precedent that basically
> does not allow states to enforce tariffs/penalties on goods imported
> from other states.

Can you provide a link to the relevant decision, please?
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 11:12:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:52:39 -0500, Larry wrote:
> In article <syfSd.8644$2%5.1015@fe07.lga>, rphunter@charter.net says...
>> Yes. If you buy at a 'duty free' shop in an airport, you can save the
>> state tax, and I believe, the federal excise tax. You may find this
>> limits your choice of cameras, however.
>
> AND, it severly limits the likelyhood of finding a bargain. Since most stuff
> sold at Airports in the US usually is sold for 50 to 65% ABOVE normal retail
> (or even higher).
>
> This MIGHT have changed (I havent flown in a LONG time) but it used to be so.

*AND* , it only applies to _outbound_ travelers.
If the OP wants to use the camera on the trip, this is not an option.
(Unless, the camera is purchased in the embarkation airport.)

Jonesy
--
| Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
| Gunnison, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | OS/2 __
| 7,703' -- 2,345m | config.com | DM68mn SK
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 11:18:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <agrSd.256223$w62.72788@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
ark@acm.org says...
> > Well, he seems to be ignoring Supreme Court precedent that basically
> > does not allow states to enforce tariffs/penalties on goods imported
> > from other states.
>
> Can you provide a link to the relevant decision, please?

I'm trying to find the case. Basically it falls under the commerce
clause not allowing tariffs on goods imported from another state, if I
remember correctly.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 11:38:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <agrSd.256223$w62.72788@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
ark@acm.org says...
> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c83fdfdb09071f98a636@news.verizon.net...
> > In article <1hqj11527miuio8rd3ibps436antrqqv9f@4ax.com>,
>
> > Well, he seems to be ignoring Supreme Court precedent that basically
> > does not allow states to enforce tariffs/penalties on goods imported
> > from other states.
>
> Can you provide a link to the relevant decision, please?

Apparently they CAN charge you their state's sales tax for items to be
used in state. You can get a credit for the difference, but it seems
absurd to try and enforce these use laws. Most states gave up a long
time ago, and that may be the area of confusion in my memory.

Even if you DO buy something out of state and bring it in state, you
haven't committed a crime as long as you "intend" to pay the appropriate
tax. Like I said in another post, the items states are really concerned
about they will require you to register or have some sort of reciprocity
agreement with other states.

The ruling I was thinking of restricts states from enforcing their sales
and use tax enforcement on entities outside their borders. So, Florida
can't make a business located outside of Florida charge Florida sales
and use tax unless it's something like a car or some other sufficiently
expensive item.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 11:44:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c83bed59650c9569896d8@news.individual.NET>,
larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
> There hasn't been any issue LATELY but a few years ago Connecticut State Law
> Enforcement was sitting at the side of the road stopping people who had been
> observered purchasing items just across the border.

I did some exhaustive research into this and found...

The most the Connecticut State Trooper could do is hand out the tax
forms and remind the citizens of their civic duty to pay Connecticut
State sales & use tax on the items they just bought.

Most states don't even bother with that any more. UPS and the internet
have become the bane of state sales taxes.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
February 21, 2005 11:44:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c84122345ea9b7598a63b@news.verizon.net>, nospam@please.no
says...
> In article <MPG.1c83bed59650c9569896d8@news.individual.NET>,
> larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
> > There hasn't been any issue LATELY but a few years ago Connecticut State Law
> > Enforcement was sitting at the side of the road stopping people who had been
> > observered purchasing items just across the border.
>
> I did some exhaustive research into this and found...
>
> The most the Connecticut State Trooper could do is hand out the tax
> forms and remind the citizens of their civic duty to pay Connecticut
> State sales & use tax on the items they just bought.
>
> Most states don't even bother with that any more. UPS and the internet
> have become the bane of state sales taxes.
>

I agree, OTOH they do still collect state sales tax from a non-exempt buyer,
regardless of what country he comes from, and THAT is what started the thread
(I think).

I was simply trying to demonstrate that states (at least my home state) go to
some extremes to collect the sales tax.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 21, 2005 11:52:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian C. Baird wrote:
> In article <1hqj11527miuio8rd3ibps436antrqqv9f@4ax.com>,
> nomail@hotmail.com says...
>>> Rhode Island is a neighboring state and it doesn't tax some items
>>> as high as Connecticut does.. A twenty minute ride for me to get
>>> to Rhode Island, where I could save BIG BUCKS on some items.. nifty
>>> huh??? Not quite. It is illegal for me to do it and if I get
>>> caught doing it I can be incarcerated, for up 15 years (tax
>>> evasion).
>>
>> How do you imagine you would be 'caught' exactly?
>
> Well, he seems to be ignoring Supreme Court precedent that basically
> does not allow states to enforce tariffs/penalties on goods imported
> from other states.

That is why many states have a Sales _and Use_ tax. The Use tax will
get you. The Supreme Court has made a number of finding that one state
can't require a vendor with no presence in that state to collect tax or (I
believe) report such sales. This whole thing is currently subject to change
due to the internet. However I don't know of any Supreme Court case that
prohibits a state from collecting a USE tax on personal property not
purchased in the home state and used for the first time in that state.

>
> You do have to pay sales tax on certain items bought out of state -
> but only in order to receive proper licensing of those items. So,
> cars, boats and other items must have sales tax paid to your state of
> residence before you can legally use them. The registration is the
> only method of enforcing the sales tax on out of state items as far
> as I know. The Supreme Court threw out tax stamps and all other
> schemes a while back.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 12:14:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <iSrSd.48428$i42.9109@fe1.columbus.rr.com>,
sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com says...
> That is why many states have a Sales _and Use_ tax. The Use tax will
> get you. The Supreme Court has made a number of finding that one state
> can't require a vendor with no presence in that state to collect tax or (I
> believe) report such sales. This whole thing is currently subject to change
> due to the internet. However I don't know of any Supreme Court case that
> prohibits a state from collecting a USE tax on personal property not
> purchased in the home state and used for the first time in that state.
>
You are correct sir, and mirror the statements I made in another post
after "digging" into the pile of exre...er, precedent that is US law.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 12:15:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c8414bf7152077e9896df@news.individual.NET>,
larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
> I was simply trying to demonstrate that states (at least my home state) go to
> some extremes to collect the sales tax.

Yeah, we know Connecticut is nuts.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
February 22, 2005 12:15:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c84196fd72fd16898a63f@news.verizon.net>, nospam@please.no
says...
> In article <MPG.1c8414bf7152077e9896df@news.individual.NET>,
> larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
> > I was simply trying to demonstrate that states (at least my home state) go to
> > some extremes to collect the sales tax.
>
> Yeah, we know Connecticut is nuts.
>

Nuts doesn't cover it... but thats for another forum.

You just observe it I have to LIVE it.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 1:30:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

>>I don't know any reputable dealer that would ship to an unverified
>>address like a hotel - especially if you're paying by credit card.
>
>There are procedures that will allow merchants to do this - if they
>really want the sale.
>The CC holder contacts his CC bank, and lets them know about the
>shipping address being different from the billiung address. Then, the
>CC holder asks the seller to contact the bank to verify the new
>shipping address; then all is OK.
>This does require the seller to make the call, though, and some may
>not want the added hassle.

And if your credit card is not issued in the US, you can forget it.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 4:06:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c841d10f926c17a9896e2@news.individual.NET>,
larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
> > Yeah, we know Connecticut is nuts.
> >
>
> Nuts doesn't cover it... but thats for another forum.
>
> You just observe it I have to LIVE it.

Well, I have to drive through it occasionally.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
February 22, 2005 4:06:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c844f978bc4c1098a643@news.verizon.net>, nospam@please.no
says...
> In article <MPG.1c841d10f926c17a9896e2@news.individual.NET>,
> larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
> > > Yeah, we know Connecticut is nuts.
> > >
> >
> > Nuts doesn't cover it... but thats for another forum.
> >
> > You just observe it I have to LIVE it.
>
> Well, I have to drive through it occasionally.
>


If you go on route 95 you probably pass within 100 ft. of my house..

Maybe farther than that, I never was any good at finding the missing side of
a triangle...

Im 75 ft. ABOVE the highway, and about 50 Ft South of the Northbound lane
(which actually runs east through Connecticut).

Next time you go by, I'll wave.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 4:15:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c8450edac04a7819896e5@news.individual.NET>,
larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
> > Well, I have to drive through it occasionally.

> If you go on route 95 you probably pass within 100 ft. of my house..
>
> Maybe farther than that, I never was any good at finding the missing side of
> a triangle...
>
> Im 75 ft. ABOVE the highway, and about 50 Ft South of the Northbound lane
> (which actually runs east through Connecticut).
>
> Next time you go by, I'll wave.

I'll let you know the next time I must travel to the Commonwealth of
Taxachussets.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 4:27:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1hqj11527miuio8rd3ibps436antrqqv9f@4ax.com>,
nomail@hotmail.com says...

> How do you imagine you would be 'caught' exactly?

Some states are more aggressive than others -- NY at least used to send
agents into NJ to track NY license plates at NJ malls, for example, and
send demand letters to NY residents. Some states also track US Customs
declarations from overseas travellers.

While the states can't make retailers in other states collect *sales*
tax, they can and do impose "use tax" on goods brought in from other
states, or from overseas. (Some states also track customs declarations
data for big-ticket use tax evasion, for example.) The big difference
for the states is the collection process -- retailers collect sales tax,
but consumers have to report and pay their own use taxes.

What states with high sales and use taxes really want is to force mail
order and internet retailers to collect taxes for them at the point of
sale. That's what the Supreme Court has consistently rejected, not
because the consumers don't owe the tax, but because the retailers aren't
in the taxing jurisdiction and aren't subject to its laws.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/&gt;
Books for Bicycle Mechanics and Tinkerers:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/bikebooks.html&gt;
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 4:29:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c8410ddb8bfa05e98a63a@news.verizon.net>,
nospam@please.no says...

> The ruling I was thinking of restricts states from enforcing their sales
> and use tax enforcement on entities outside their borders. So, Florida
> can't make a business located outside of Florida charge Florida sales
> and use tax unless it's something like a car or some other sufficiently
> expensive item.

Quill and Lands End are two of the big direct-mail companies whose
resistance to sales tax collection has made it up to the Supreme Court if
I remember correctly. California has tried any number of times to impose
its tax collection burden on retailers in other states.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/&gt;
Books for Bicycle Mechanics and Tinkerers:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/bikebooks.html&gt;
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 8:52:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Joshua Putnam" posted:
"...
California has tried any number of times to impose
its tax collection burden on retailers in other states.
...."

And been 100% successful.

Some advice ... don't mess with that entity known as "California State
Board of Equalization" ... they'll get you every time (and, they can be
rather MEAN about it).






"Joshua Putnam" <josh@phred.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c849b5016c07c089896f4@news.blarg.net...
> In article <MPG.1c8410ddb8bfa05e98a63a@news.verizon.net>,
> nospam@please.no says...
>
>
> Quill and Lands End are two of the big direct-mail companies whose
> resistance to sales tax collection has made it up to the Supreme Court if
> I remember correctly. California has tried any number of times to impose
> its tax collection burden on retailers in other states.
>
> --
> josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
> <http://www.phred.org/~josh/&gt;
> Books for Bicycle Mechanics and Tinkerers:
> <http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/bikebooks.html&gt;
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 9:19:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:08:48 GMT, Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no>
wrote:

>In article <DvgSd.2326$OU1.1961@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
>ptravel@ruyitang.com says...
>> However, you
>> can avoid state taxes by having the camera shipped to a different state,
>> e.g. if you're going to visit New York and California, buy the camera in New
>> York and have it shipped to your hotel in California.
>
>I don't know any reputable dealer that would ship to an unverified
>address like a hotel - especially if you're paying by credit card.


Unless you arrange with your credit card company to do that. I'd have
B&H send the stuff to the California address.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:04:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4jKSd.42626$uc.12104@trnddc03>, rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net
says...
> "Joshua Putnam" posted:
> "...
> California has tried any number of times to impose
> its tax collection burden on retailers in other states.
> ..."
>
> And been 100% successful.

Hardly, they've had repeated failures trying to get sales taxes applied
on out-of-state mail order companies.

> Some advice ... don't mess with that entity known as "California State
> Board of Equalization" ... they'll get you every time (and, they can be
> rather MEAN about it).

They've certainly made out-of-state companies waste a lot of money on
lawyers resisting the state's demands.

If I were actually within their jurisdiction, I'd certainly try to stay
on their good side.

--
josh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/&gt;
Updated Bicycle Touring Books List:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/tourbooks.html&gt;
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 9:42:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RSD99 wrote:
> "...
> California has tried any number of times to impose
> its tax collection burden on retailers in other states.
> ..."
>
> And been 100% successful.

Wrong. California can only require that retailers with a business
presence in the state collect sales tax. B&H has never collected sales
tax from me. California does require (request?) that residents pay "use
tax" on items received from other states where California sales tax was
not paid - dunno how they're going to enforce that.

-Dave
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 6:30:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:42:06 -0800, Dave Herzstein
<dherzstein@juno.com> wrote:

>RSD99 wrote:
>> "...
>> California has tried any number of times to impose
>> its tax collection burden on retailers in other states.
>> ..."
>>
>> And been 100% successful.
>
>Wrong. California can only require that retailers with a business
>presence in the state collect sales tax. B&H has never collected sales
>tax from me. California does require (request?) that residents pay "use
>tax" on items received from other states where California sales tax was
>not paid - dunno how they're going to enforce that.

Exactly, it comes down to jurisdiction. There'd be another civil war
if companies based entirely in low sales-tax states had to start
collecting taxes for other high-tax states.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:58:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <rj7p119uqk59a827l24rptccardvp2egtq@4ax.com>,
nomail@hotmail.com says...
> >Wrong. California can only require that retailers with a business
> >presence in the state collect sales tax. B&H has never collected sales
> >tax from me. California does require (request?) that residents pay "use
> >tax" on items received from other states where California sales tax was
> >not paid - dunno how they're going to enforce that.
>
> Exactly, it comes down to jurisdiction. There'd be another civil war
> if companies based entirely in low sales-tax states had to start
> collecting taxes for other high-tax states.

Eventually data collection and transfer will be so easy that reporting
sales info to other states will be very simple. You'll see a lot more
reciprocity agreements and those low sales tax states won't see the
benefit any more.

Or we might all die of the plague. In either case, hopefully I'll be
dead of old age by that time.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:03:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:42:06 -0800, Dave Herzstein
> <dherzstein@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>>RSD99 wrote:
>>
>>>"...
>>>California has tried any number of times to impose
>>>its tax collection burden on retailers in other states.
>>>..."
>>>
>>>And been 100% successful.
>>
>>Wrong. California can only require that retailers with a business
>>presence in the state collect sales tax. B&H has never collected sales
>>tax from me. California does require (request?) that residents pay "use
>>tax" on items received from other states where California sales tax was
>>not paid - dunno how they're going to enforce that.
>
>
> Exactly, it comes down to jurisdiction. There'd be another civil war
> if companies based entirely in low sales-tax states had to start
> collecting taxes for other high-tax states.
>
> --
> Owamanga!

I can understand why states want to collect taxes on goods sold to out
of state customers, but the idea of a state requiring a business to
collect a tax for ANOTHER state is just about the stupidest idea I have
heard come out of a politician's mouth, and THAT'S saying something!

Imagine trying to keep current a database that included every taxing
authority in the country!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:05:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian C. Baird wrote:
> In article <rj7p119uqk59a827l24rptccardvp2egtq@4ax.com>,
> nomail@hotmail.com says...
>
>>>Wrong. California can only require that retailers with a business
>>>presence in the state collect sales tax. B&H has never collected sales
>>>tax from me. California does require (request?) that residents pay "use
>>>tax" on items received from other states where California sales tax was
>>>not paid - dunno how they're going to enforce that.
>>
>>Exactly, it comes down to jurisdiction. There'd be another civil war
>>if companies based entirely in low sales-tax states had to start
>>collecting taxes for other high-tax states.
>
>
> Eventually data collection and transfer will be so easy that reporting
> sales info to other states will be very simple. You'll see a lot more
> reciprocity agreements and those low sales tax states won't see the
> benefit any more.
>
> Or we might all die of the plague. In either case, hopefully I'll be
> dead of old age by that time.

The simple answer is for the seller to collect tax on out of state sales
exactly as he would for a walkin customer who lived in another city, or
county. He collects the tax relevant to HIS location, NOT that for the
buyer's location! Anything else is ludicrous.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:27:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian C. Baird wrote:
> In article <rj7p119uqk59a827l24rptccardvp2egtq@4ax.com>,
> nomail@hotmail.com says...
>>> Wrong. California can only require that retailers with a business
>>> presence in the state collect sales tax. B&H has never collected
>>> sales tax from me. California does require (request?) that
>>> residents pay "use tax" on items received from other states where
>>> California sales tax was not paid - dunno how they're going to
>>> enforce that.
>>
>> Exactly, it comes down to jurisdiction. There'd be another civil war
>> if companies based entirely in low sales-tax states had to start
>> collecting taxes for other high-tax states.
>
> Eventually data collection and transfer will be so easy that reporting
> sales info to other states will be very simple. You'll see a lot more
> reciprocity agreements and those low sales tax states won't see the
> benefit any more.

The real current problem is determining the correct taxing district and
rate. There are often thousands of taxing districts in one state and they
may not follow zip code lines.

>
> Or we might all die of the plague. In either case, hopefully I'll be
> dead of old age by that time.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:43:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:27:02 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
<sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Brian C. Baird wrote:
>> In article <rj7p119uqk59a827l24rptccardvp2egtq@4ax.com>,
>> nomail@hotmail.com says...
>>>> Wrong. California can only require that retailers with a business
>>>> presence in the state collect sales tax. B&H has never collected
>>>> sales tax from me. California does require (request?) that
>>>> residents pay "use tax" on items received from other states where
>>>> California sales tax was not paid - dunno how they're going to
>>>> enforce that.
>>>
>>> Exactly, it comes down to jurisdiction. There'd be another civil war
>>> if companies based entirely in low sales-tax states had to start
>>> collecting taxes for other high-tax states.
>>
>> Eventually data collection and transfer will be so easy that reporting
>> sales info to other states will be very simple. You'll see a lot more
>> reciprocity agreements and those low sales tax states won't see the
>> benefit any more.
>
> The real current problem is determining the correct taxing district and
>rate. There are often thousands of taxing districts in one state and they
>may not follow zip code lines.

Yep, because if a state can do it to another state, a county can do it
to another county and a city can do it to another city or any
combination of the above. These all have taxing authority, but luckily
they've made it so damn complicated agreements will be difficult at
best.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:44:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <qG5Td.6384$Sa6.673@fe2.columbus.rr.com>,
sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com says...
> > Eventually data collection and transfer will be so easy that reporting
> > sales info to other states will be very simple. You'll see a lot more
> > reciprocity agreements and those low sales tax states won't see the
> > benefit any more.
>
> The real current problem is determining the correct taxing district and
> rate. There are often thousands of taxing districts in one state and they
> may not follow zip code lines.

Yeah, that happens when you don't have state income tax.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
!