TAX THOSE RICH BASTIDS

[thegreekdog]

By contrast, it is not cost-effective and very difficult to ensure that each and every person within the state of Texas obeys the law.

Correct! Which is why Texas says "hey, Amazon, you owe us $270 million even though we have no basis in law or fact to request it" and why Texas didn't say, "hey, purchasers, you owe us $270 million, but there are a lot of you; so even though we have a basis in law and fact to go after you, we're not going to." Amazon is moving their stuff out of Texas because the state screwed them over. Texas had no basis in law to assess the tax, but did anyway. So Amazon's gone. I have no sympathy for the comptroller.

And, as you of all people should know - simple does not equal right.

We are disputing your framing of the facts and the impact of those rules.

I disagree. We're disputing Constitutional law and you're ignoring the impact of changing the restrictions of the Constitution (which I've laid out in another post). You're also compeltely ignoring that there IS NO IMPACT OF THE RULES TO THE TEXAS TAX!!! If the people of Texas did what they were supposed to do, Texas would have its money.

Oh, here's another good one for you - what if everyone in Texas who purchased an Amazon book paid use tax to the state? Do you think Texas would still assess Amazon? YES!!!! OF COURSE THE STATE WOULD ASSESS AMAZON!!!

[PLAYER57832]

By contrast, it is not cost-effective and very difficult to ensure that each and every person within the state of Texas obeys the law.

Correct! Which is why Texas says "hey, Amazon, you owe us $270 million even though we have no basis in law or fact to request it" and why Texas didn't say, "hey, purchasers, you owe us $270 million, but there are a lot of you; so even though we have a basis in law and fact to go after you, we're not going to." Amazon is moving their stuff out of Texas because the state screwed them over. Texas had no basis in law to assess the tax, but did anyway. So Amazon's gone. I have no sympathy for the comptroller.

And, as you of all people should know - simple does not equal right.

We are disputing your framing of the facts and the impact of those rules.

I disagree. We're disputing Constitutional law and you're ignoring the impact of changing the restrictions of the Constitution (which I've laid out in another post). You're also compeltely ignoring that there IS NO IMPACT OF THE RULES TO THE TEXAS TAX!!! If the people of Texas did what they were supposed to do, Texas would have its money.

Oh, here's another good one for you - what if everyone in Texas who purchased an Amazon book paid use tax to the state? Do you think Texas would still assess Amazon? YES!!!! OF COURSE THE STATE WOULD ASSESS AMAZON!!!

Greekdog, this whole line of conversation began with our saying that corporations should pay more taxes. You have tried to spin that into cheating, etc.

That it is so inefficient for Texas, impractical for Texas to collect the taxes, even if it technically should, means that this is not a good rule. It harms Texas, which is, yes, why they are trying to argue that Amazon should pay.

Whether the court agrees, should agree or not is another issue. We are saying the rules are wrong, and need to change.

[thegreekdog]

This whole line of conversation started when I pointed out that when politicians use the term "tax loophole" they are being stupid at best and nefarious at worst.

The tax may be inefficient for Texas, but, and to borrow a phrase from you, this is the real point...

THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE PASSED THIS TAX!!!

This is how Texas has elected to tax purchases in its state. It could do something else, sure. Like Arizona - Arizona has a gross receipts tax. Physical presence is not required for a gross receipts tax. Texas could have a gross receipts tax, but they have elected to have a sales and use tax.

Perhaps you can propose an amendment to the Commerce Clause. Good luck with that. As I typed before, changing the Commerce clause would be disastrous.

[BigBallinStalin]

[Timminz]

If they weren't required to collect the tax, how the hell should they be responsible for remitting it?

Change the laws to force them to collect/remit the tax in the future, sure, but you can't just apply this retroactively.

[PLAYER57832]

This whole line of conversation started when I pointed out that when politicians use the term "tax loophole" they are being stupid at best and nefarious at worst.

But the term "loophole" came up because we were saying that the base corporate rate, which is high, is not the true reflection of the taxes companies pay.

I have no idea why you consider that term so offensive. Probably because of your profession? It IS a tax loophole. For some reason you seem to think a loophole means "cheating" or some other definition. A loophole, in common vernacular, means something companies get to take advantage of. You can argue that you think this is good or whatever, but that doesn't mean calling it a loophoole is false.

The tax may be inefficient for Texas, but, and to borrow a phrase from you, this is the real point...

THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE PASSED THIS TAX!!!

This is how Texas has elected to tax purchases in its state. It could do something else, sure. Like Arizona - Arizona has a gross receipts tax. Physical presence is not required for a gross receipts tax. Texas could have a gross receipts tax, but they have elected to have a sales and use tax.

Again, its irrelevant. No one disputes how we got the tax system we have, that is, we don't dipute that it was passed into law. We do dispute why it was passed, I believe. The point is our system is inefficient.

Perhaps you can propose an amendment to the Commerce Clause. Good luck with that. As I typed before, changing the Commerce clause would be disastrous.

Your argument had little to do with my arguments regarding taxes.

I would like see ammendment f the commerce clause, yes. For example, a state and locality should not be forced to take New York city trash just because some landowner is willing to allow it and make a profit. This should not be allowed because there is no such thing as a self-contained dump. States and localities ought to, at the least, be able to charge fees that go into mitigation. Claiming that would be "disasterous" ignores the disaster we have right now. Regardless, I don't see it happening.

[thegreekdog]

The term loophole is defined as "a means of escape or evasion; a means of opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc." It is also defined as "an ambiguity, omission, etc. as in a law, by which one can avoid a penalty or responsibility."

To me, a tax attorney, a tax loophole is something that a tax advisor helps a company find for which it can avoid paying tax. For example, a tax loophole may be an exemption that was not meant to apply to a company that the company takes advantage of because the law is poorly written or the situation was not contemplated by the legislature when the tax provision was passed.

What a tax loophole is not is the United States Constitution. What a tax loophole is not is a provision of Texas law that requires only those companies that have physical presence in the state to file sales tax returns. When the Texas Comptroller's Office (NOT the legislature) argues, "Hey, that provision in our law that says you need physical presence? Ignore it. We don't really mean it. We mean that if you have $300 million of sales in our state, you have to collect sales tax. And oh yeah, we're going to make it retroactive because that's always been our position, even though we've never said it." - that's not a tax loophole.

If you're talking about changing the tax law (or the Constitution), go ahead. Like I said before, we're going to get an unfair result for companies if we do this. That is why the Commerce Clause jurisprudence has led to the dormant Commerce Clause which has led to state taxes being required to be fairly apportioned... to avoid unfairness.

[PLAYER57832]

If you're talking about changing the tax law (or the Constitution), go ahead. Like I said before, we're going to get an unfair result for companies if we do this. That is why the Commerce Clause jurisprudence has led to the dormant Commerce Clause which has led to state taxes being required to be fairly apportioned... to avoid unfairness.

The solution you presented as unfair is not what I was suggesting (and I don't hink what anyone else was suggesting).

At any rate, yes, I think that the commerce clause has come to be abused in many ways. However, that is another topic. (and the abuses I mean are not so much to do with taxes as other issues).