Pay Sales Tax Twice ?
Anthony
due on each sale. Many items (non-registered) sold between
private individuals do not record or pay the tax. Have you
ever bought a item at a resale shop ?? Or a used car ??
--
Anthony
ar...@yahoo.com
"Don't regret getting older, many are denied the chance"
Katie Jaques
> If Business A buys an item, pays sales tax, and months or
> years later sells it to Business B, does business A need
> to charge business B Sales Tax at the time of sale ? The
> specific state in question is MA.
>
> It seems to me that if the Sales Tax is paid once, that'd
> be enough, but I don't work at the Dept of Revenue :-)
In general, if Business A has made a taxable use of the
item, and subsequently resells it to Business B, sales tax
applies to the second sale. The sales tax applies to all
sales "at retail," meaning sales to consumers. If Business
A used the item in its own business, it was the consumer; if
it then sells the used item to Business B, B is the
consumer.
However, when the assets of a business are sold, certain
sales/use tax exemptions may apply. For example, in some
states, if the item sold by A to B is not an item that is
normally sold by A in the regular course of its business,
the sale to B will be exempt as an occasional sale. Or, if
A used the item in a business that does not require holding
a seller's permit (such as a service business), the sale to
B may be exempt. Or, if the asset is sold as part of a bulk
sale of all of the assets of A, a bulk sale exemption may
apply.
I don't know off the top of my head about Massachusetts --
would have to look it up. I'd suggest contacting the Mass.
DOR for specific information.
Katie in San Diego.
Andy Grossman
> If Business A buys an item, pays sales tax, and months or
> years later sells it to Business B, does business A need
> to charge business B Sales Tax at the time of sale ? The
> specific state in question is MA.
>
> It seems to me that if the Sales Tax is paid once, that'd
> be enough, but I don't work at the Dept of Revenue :-)
Sales tax is a turnover tax, paid each time title is
transferred, unless a specific exception exists (this
relates to certain gifts, intra-family transfers and certain
corporate transfers within a single group). Exceptions exist
in some states for transfers to charitable and governmental
organizations, and in every state for transfers to and from
diplomatic and consular establishments except to European
Union diplomats (this has to do with a difference of view
between the Americans and the EU as to whether VAT is a
direct or an indirect tax, and how the Vienna Convention
applies to it); also to exports out of the jurisdiction and
to sales for re-sale (which creates a problem for firms
which want to take title to goods for re-sale in a
jurisdiction in which they have not registered to collect
tax). Your reasoning applies to value added tax. When an
antique, or a used car, is sold in a VAT jurisdiction (in
Europe, etc.), the VAT applies only to the profit margin or
commission. Andy Grossman Universite catholique de Louvain
Michael T Wing CPA
tax will be paid each time an item is resold to someone
who will be "using" the item (ie: *not* simply holding
it for resale). This is a fact that the advocates of a
national sales tax seem to ignore.
MTW
--
-Michael T. Wing, CPA (WA)
mailto:mike...@compuserve.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mikewing/
TaxService
> If Business A buys an item, pays sales tax, and months or
> years later sells it to Business B, does business A need
> to charge business B Sales Tax at the time of sale ? The
> specific state in question is MA.
>
> It seems to me that if the Sales Tax is paid once, that'd
> be enough, but I don't work at the Dept of Revenue :-)
Items purchased for resale, if you had a resellers
certificate, would not have been taxed. If you did pay a
tax it would be included in the cost of your inventory.
Many items are taxed more than one time. For instance, all
items sold at a flea market are subject to the tax under MA
law. These are used items upon which the tax was,
presumably, paid when the item was new. For more info on MA
sales tax go to the following URL:
http://www.state.ma.us/dor/publ/pdfs/sls_use.pdf
The instructions in the Department of Revenue's tax forms
should provide answers to most taxpayer questions. For
further information on Massachusetts sales and use tax law,
please contact:
Department of Revenue, Customer Service Bureau
PO Box 7010
Boston, MA 02204
(617) 887-MDOR or toll-free in Massachusetts 1-800-392-6089
"Jack" - John H. Fisher - TaxSe...@aol.com
Philadelphia, Pa - Atlantic City, NJ - West Wildwood, NJ
My Newsgroups & Boards at: http://members.aol.com/TaxService/index.html
Where Ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise!=:)
Edward Zollars
> I can't speak for the State of MA. But, generally, sales
> tax will be paid each time an item is resold to someone
> who will be "using" the item (ie: *not* simply holding
> it for resale). This is a fact that the advocates of a
> national sales tax seem to ignore.
One of the things that few people outside of tax departments
in large retailers really understand is just how *different*
sales tax rules are from place to place. Those who don't
have an auditing background don't understand that confirming
gross receipts also is the most difficult thing to do, and
requires the most invasive procedures which tend to assume
that items are being underreported.
A sales tax, in the abstract, *sounds* simpler to most
people. But they also assume that a) the rates would be
similar to what states/localities current charge (they would
be much higher) and b) that a number of transactions they
engage in would be excluded (as they are under local law).
Heck, I'm sure a majority believe that mail order and
Internet based sales would be exempt <grin>.
Those pushing a tax who come up with a rate will quietly
assume *all* sales (including real estate, sales between
private parties, etc.) will be included, since that produces
the lowest rate. Of course, that would also involve the
most invasive procedures to enforce and would bring howls as
people saw what happened to home prices <grin>. So, most
likely, we'd see a number of special exemptions carved out,
and the rate go up. Of course, that increases the incentive
to "cheat" your way around the rules and interpretations
being needed to figure out what is/isn't taxed.
Ed Zollars, CPA (AZ)
ezo...@primenet.com
http://www.getnet.com/~hmtzcpas
john_k...@hotmail.com
Basically they just sent me a form saying that they went
over my taxes and that they thought I should have done them
slightly different. The difference was a relatively small
amount, I wrote them a check, and everyone is happy.
My question is, do I ever have to worry about my 1997 taxes
again? I would _like_ to assume that since the IRS itself
basically did my taxes for 1997 (they audited me after all)
then since they are the final authority on such things, that
I never have to think about that tax return again.
Is there any reason to belive that on a further review of
those taxes (by whoever - I am not sure why anyone would,
but let's say they did) that they could come back _again_
and say "we decided you were wrong both times - now you owe
us more".
I guess to really sum it up, is there any possible way that
I can ever owe more for my 1997 taxes, after the IRS audited
me and I paid the bill?
thanks - please CC any responses to this email address, as I
sometimes can't catch the news responses in time....
kozubik - john_k...@hotmail.com - ICQ: 26331923
Per
> If Business A buys an item, pays sales tax, and months or
> years later sells it to Business B, does business A need
> to charge business B Sales Tax at the time of sale ? The
> specific state in question is MA.
>
> It seems to me that if the Sales Tax is paid once, that'd
> be enough, but I don't work at the Dept of Revenue :-)
Is this a Value Added Tax or a simple sales tax? In a VAT
system, Business A would charge Business B sales tax.
Business B then deducts that sales tax from the sales tax it
charges its customers, and pays the surplus to the
government.
In a sales tax system, the sales tax is only charged once,
at the sale to he final customer. Is that what you're using
in the U.S.? At my latest visit, you seemed to use a regular
VAT system, just as over here in the EU.
Regards,
Per Andersson
jur stud
Faculty of Law
Stockholm University
Katie Jaques
> I can't speak for the State of MA. But, generally, sales
> tax will be paid each time an item is resold to someone
> who will be "using" the item (ie: *not* simply holding
> it for resale). This is a fact that the advocates of a
> national sales tax seem to ignore.
.. along with a lot of other inconvenient facts about sales/use taxes!
Katie
Edward Zollars
> In a sales tax system, the sales tax is only charged once,
> at the sale to he final customer. Is that what you're using
> in the U.S.? At my latest visit, you seemed to use a regular
> VAT system, just as over here in the EU.
It is a sales tax system as opposed to the VAT credit based
system (where each step get a "credit" for taxes paid
previously if it moves the product along the chain), but the
issue here seems to be where a business acquires an asset as
"final consumer" (will not resell said product) and then
later resells the product.
One other important issue here--the various sales tax
systems are *NOT* national in scope, so it's not really the
case that there is one consumption tax system we are using
in the U.S. Some states have no sales tax whatsoever.
Edward Zollars
> My question is, do I ever have to worry about my 1997 taxes
> again? I would _like_ to assume that since the IRS itself
> basically did my taxes for 1997 (they audited me after all)
> then since they are the final authority on such things, that
> I never have to think about that tax return again.
Actually, it sounds a lot like your return wasn't "audited"
per se, but rather either a mathematical mistake was
corrected *OR* a 1099 matching program turned up
missing/misreported income. If that's the case, then really
this incident did nothing to change the odds of being
examined on other criteria.
Note that the odds of being truly examined are mightly small
anyway--we see very, very few examinations among our client
base, and it's not because there are no issues that could be
disputed between the IRS and the taxpayer (obviously we
believe we'd prevail, but still many things here are not
crystal clear).
If you had participated in an actual examination of your
return, the odds would move awfully close to zero on having
any other changes proposed once the examination was closed
out. In addition to the fact that it's difficult for the
IRS to get back into the year after the examination, there's
the simple fact that given the timing of examinations, the
statute of limitations many times doesn't have long to run
once an examination is completed, especially if the issues
were at all complex.
Frederick E. Jorden
> uctr...@ultranet.com (Bob) wrote:
>> If Business A buys an item, pays sales tax, and months or
>> years later sells it to Business B, does business A need
>> to charge business B Sales Tax at the time of sale ? The
>> specific state in question is MA.
>>
>> It seems to me that if the Sales Tax is paid once, that'd
>> be enough, but I don't work at the Dept of Revenue :-)
> Is this a Value Added Tax or a simple sales tax? In a VAT
> system, Business A would charge Business B sales tax.
> Business B then deducts that sales tax from the sales tax it
> charges its customers, and pays the surplus to the
> government.
>
> In a sales tax system, the sales tax is only charged once,
> at the sale to he final customer. Is that what you're using
> in the U.S.? At my latest visit, you seemed to use a regular
> VAT system, just as over here in the EU.
But, there is no reduction in sales tax for sales tax
previously paid on inputs. I think that most VATs
permit this reduction. Go Hoos!
--
Frederick E. Jorden http://fejcpapc.com/
Frederick E. Jorden, CPA PC
10049 Midlothian Tpk - 2-H Richmond, VA 23235 EMAIL fej...@erols.com
(804) 320-6210 FAX (804) 320-6211
Katie Jaques
snip
> I guess to really sum it up, is there any possible way that
> I can ever owe more for my 1997 taxes, after the IRS audited
> me and I paid the bill?
Legally, the IRS can make additional deficiency assessments
until the statute of limitations on the return (generally, 3
years from the date of filing) expires. As a matter of
policy and workload management, however, they generally will
not re-open a case on which an audit (even a cursory desk
audit) has been completed. An exception would be if you
were a partner or stockholder in a pass-through entity that
was later audited by the IRS and the adjustments flowed
through to your return. In that case, you would get an
additional assessment.
Katie in San Diego
The foregoing is intended for educational purposes only and
does not constitute legal or professional advice. The views
expressed herein are those of the writer and are not
expressed on behalf of her employer.
Per
> It is a sales tax system as opposed to the VAT credit based
> system (where each step get a "credit" for taxes paid
> previously if it moves the product along the chain), but the
> issue here seems to be where a business acquires an asset as
> "final consumer" (will not resell said product) and then
> later resells the product.
And this simply shows that a sales tax system is inferior to
a VAT system. The sales tax system puts the burden on the
seller to ascertain whether or not the purchaser is the
final consumer. A VAT system puts that "burden" on the
purchaser, since a purchaser that cannot deduct paid VAT
is, automatically, a final consumer. The VAT system thus
makes life easier both for the seller and the purchaser.
(Even if our current EU-VAT is complicated enough...)
> One other important issue here--the various sales tax
> systems are *NOT* national in scope, so it's not really the
> case that there is one consumption tax system we are using
> in the U.S. Some states have no sales tax whatsoever.
Which states have VAT, sales tax or no consumption tax
at all?
Regards,
Per
Per
> But, there is no reduction in sales tax for sales tax
> previously paid on inputs. I think that most VATs
> permit this reduction. Go Hoos!
All VAT systems allow deductions of paid tax, or else they
would not be VAT systems.
Regards,
Per
D. Stussy
> over my taxes and that they thought I should have done them
> slightly different. The difference was a relatively small
> amount, I wrote them a check, and everyone is happy.
That's not an audit. You weren't asked to prove that
any of the amounts listed on your return were correct.
> My question is, do I ever have to worry about my 1997 taxes
> again? I would _like_ to assume that since the IRS itself
> basically did my taxes for 1997 (they audited me after all)
> then since they are the final authority on such things, that
> I never have to think about that tax return again.
You can still be audited for up to 3 years from when you
filed (or when the return was due, whichever was later).
For some things, even longer.
> Is there any reason to belive that on a further review of
> those taxes (by whoever - I am not sure why anyone would,
> but let's say they did) that they could come back _again_
> and say "we decided you were wrong both times - now you owe
> us more".
Probably not for the item they changed during receipt
and processing.
> I guess to really sum it up, is there any possible way that
> I can ever owe more for my 1997 taxes, after the IRS audited
> me and I paid the bill?
Yes - especially since you weren't audited.
Edward Zollars
> A VAT system puts that "burden" on the purchaser, since a
> purchaser that cannot deduct paid VAT is, automatically,
> a final consumer.
Maybe--I expect you'd find that simply because it is
*different* that there would be complaints. Also, some
sellers in the US can virtually ignore the sales tax--if you
are a wholesaler, there's very little work that needs to be
done (get buyer to certify they are a reseller and licensed
and that's it--pretty much done for good for sales to that
buyer). In a VAT, all sellers must deal with collecting and
remitting the tax, as well as having to pay it and keep
track of it.
I strongly suspect that my wholesaler clients would complain
loudly about a VAT <grin>.
Also, since a VAT builds the tax into the price, it would
have an initial "apparent" inflationary impact. A lot of
people seem to gloss over the sales tax when shopping, but
the VAT would force that tax to be built into the pricing.
Also, we have the Quill problem--since sales taxes are
currently a state/locality issue, there is the issue of
radically different rates and an inability to collect taxes
across state taxes.
>> One other important issue here--the various sales tax
>> systems are *NOT* national in scope, so it's not really the
>> case that there is one consumption tax system we are using
>> in the U.S. Some states have no sales tax whatsoever.
> Which states have VAT, sales tax or no consumption tax
> at all?
No states have a VAT largely because the Quill issues would
make it virtually impossible for a state to pull it off --
all you would do is force businesses out of the state. The
hitch is that either there would be no mechanism to recover
the tax for out of state sales *OR* you'd have to build
extra complexity into the system to allow for that (very
likely) option. Since a large portion of commerce in the US
crosses state lines at some point, the VAT would most likely
end up being simply a sales tax imposed once the product got
to the final destination.
I recall seeing a list of five states that don't have a
sales taxes--Oregon and Alaska come to mind immediately.
Erin J Moore
> I recall seeing a list of five states that don't have a
> sales taxes--Oregon and Alaska come to mind immediately.
The five states can be remembered with NOMAD:
New Hampshire
Oregon
Montana
Alaska
Delaware
BTW, is anyone else finding that many normal-looking
posts are being replaced with really offensive spam
in this newsgroup?
--Erin J Moore
To reply, please remove 'nospam' from my address.
Edward Zollars
> BTW, is anyone else finding that many normal-looking
> posts are being replaced with really offensive spam
> in this newsgroup?
Complain to your news administrator--this is a usenet wide
problem that is correctable if your admin installs some
filtering logic to block the supercedes being used. If
you've missed posts, go to RemarQ (http://www.remarq.com)
and search for this newsgroup--you'll find the posts there
as they were originally posted.
Per
> Maybe--I expect you'd find that simply because it is
> *different* that there would be complaints. Also, some
> sellers in the US can virtually ignore the sales tax--if you
> are a wholesaler, there's very little work that needs to be
> done (get buyer to certify they are a reseller and licensed
> and that's it--pretty much done for good for sales to that
> buyer). In a VAT, all sellers must deal with collecting and
> remitting the tax, as well as having to pay it and keep
> track of it.
There is an advantage in the eyes of tax administrations --
it makes it more difficult to cheat (and actually less
profitable). If a seller doesn't charge VAT on his sales and
doesn't file any VAT return at all, the VAT paid is simply a
cost. If he did file, he would report a large VAT deficit
that would be refunded. However, any seller who reports a
deficit for more than one or two years can expect an audit.
Actually, there are of course many 'creative' ways of using
the VAT refund. One favourite trick is to over-invoice from
associated suppliers. Pizza bakers used to do that, but the
taxmen started to compare the amount of dough and sauce
reportedly bought to the amount of pizzas actually sold.
> I strongly suspect that my wholesaler clients would
> complain loudly about a VAT <grin>.
The basic issue is that the VAT is not a cost, but it
affects the cashflow of the seller. The seller has to pay
the VAT in cash to the taxman monthly, even though the
seller only has a 30- or 60-day claim on the buyer. This
is a major headache especially for small businesses. I
suspect that the sales tax system is more advantageous
for small businesses in this respect.
> Also, since a VAT builds the tax into the price, it would
> have an initial "apparent" inflationary impact. A lot of
> people seem to gloss over the sales tax when shopping, but
> the VAT would force that tax to be built into the pricing.
Of course, when the VAT is introduced or the VAT rate
raised, that causes an immediate inflation impact.
> Also, we have the Quill problem--since sales taxes are
> currently a state/locality issue, there is the issue of
> radically different rates and an inability to collect taxes
> across state taxes.
A _very_ big problem 'over here' currently. As you might know, 11 EU
states yesterday formed a monetary union, the EMU. (Sweden is not --
as yet -- a part of the EMU). When the common currency, the euro, is
up and running, consumers can buy from the country with the lowest VAT
rate. (As they could earlier, obviously, but it was more complicated.)
Technically, the VAT is charged in the country of the buyer. (It works
like this: VAT is not charged on export sales, and the exporter gets
the domestic VAT he has paid refunded. VAT is charged on imports.)
However, there is no really efficient way of monitoring that the
seller actually pays VAT to the country of the consumer. Succinctly,
consumers within the EMU can now exploit the different VAT rates by
buying from the country with the lowest VAT rate.
The VAT rates and bases are semi-harmonised. The minimum
rate is 15% (with certain exceptions) and the maximum is
25% (in Sweden and Denmark).
The only realistic way of dealing with this problem is
to charge VAT in the country of the seller and to enact
a common EU VAT law with a uniform VAT rate. I'm quite
certain such a development is not far away, even though
no politicians seem to have realised that.
> No states have a VAT largely because the Quill issues would
> make it virtually impossible for a state to pull it off --
> all you would do is force businesses out of the state. The
> hitch is that either there would be no mechanism to recover
> the tax for out of state sales *OR* you'd have to build
> extra complexity into the system to allow for that (very
> likely) option.
In the EU, this problem seems to have been solved in an
acceptable manner. The export seller, as related above,
gets a refund.
> I recall seeing a list of five states that don't have a
> sales taxes--Oregon and Alaska come to mind immediately.
When I visited New York, I was recommended to shop in New
Jersey since NJ did not have a sales tax whereas NY has.
Katie Jaques
>> A VAT system puts that "burden" on the purchaser, since a
>> purchaser that cannot deduct paid VAT is, automatically,
>> a final consumer.
snip
>> Which states have VAT, sales tax or no consumption tax
>> at all?
> No states have a VAT largely because the Quill issues would
> make it virtually impossible for a state to pull it off --
> all you would do is force businesses out of the state. The
> hitch is that either there would be no mechanism to recover
> the tax for out of state sales *OR* you'd have to build
> extra complexity into the system to allow for that (very
> likely) option. Since a large portion of commerce in the US
> crosses state lines at some point, the VAT would most likely
> end up being simply a sales tax imposed once the product got
> to the final destination.
>
> I recall seeing a list of five states that don't have a
> sales taxes--Oregon and Alaska come to mind immediately.
The states that have no state sales or use tax are: New
Hampshire, Oregon, Montana, Alaska, and Delaware. (Spells
NOMAD, a convenient mnemonic.) Alaska does, however, allow
local governments to impose sales/use taxes, and has some of
the highest local rates in the country.
Actually, one state, Michigan, does have a VAT, but it is
not the invoice/credit VAT of the European model. Instead,
it is an addition-method VAT, known as the Single Business
Tax. Also, if you put the New Hampshire Business Profits
Tax and the Business Enterprise Tax together, it comes to
pretty much the same thing.
Some of the "flat tax" federal reform proposals that have
been floating around, including Hall-Rabushka, Armey, and
Nunn-Domenici, would impose an addition-method value added
tax on businesses, quite similar to the Michigan SBT. Most
of the coverage of these proposals has focused on their
effect on individuals, particularly wage-earners, so the
business aspect of them has not received much attention.
Anyone who thinks an addition-method VAT would be simpler
than the current system needs to talk to some practitioners
in Michigan.
Edward Zollars
> In the EU, this problem seems to have been solved in an
> acceptable manner. The export seller, as related above,
> gets a refund.
True, but on direct sales (the problem here in the US)
current law would suggest you either end up with the
equivalent of the use tax (where the buyer reports and pays
over his/her VAT) or the VAT simply won't be charged.
That is, to use your example, if I (located in Arizona) buy
products from Amazon.com (located in Washington), just how
would Arizona get its tax?
Bruce Steiner
> When I visited New York, I was recommended to shop in New
> Jersey since NJ did not have a sales tax whereas NY has.
New Jersey has a 6% sales tax, but clothing (with a few
exceptions) is exempt.
The sales tax in New York varies within the state. New York
State has a 4% sales tax, but most if not all counties and
some cities have their own sales tax. For example, the
sales tax in New York City is 8.25%, of which 4% goes to New
York State, 4% to New York City and 0.25% is collected in
New York City and nearby counties for transportation. But
clothing is not exempt in New York.
In both New York and New Jersey, if you were to buy
something and have it sent out of the state, there would
not be any sales tax in the state where you bought it,
though there could be tax in the state to which it is sent
(except, of course, if you send clothing to New Jersey,
since clothing is exempt in New Jersey).
Bruce Steiner, attorney
NYC and Hackensack, NJ
also admitted in FL
75270...@csi.com
> The states that have no state sales or use tax are: New
> Hampshire, Oregon, Montana, Alaska, and Delaware. (Spells
> NOMAD, a convenient mnemonic.) Alaska does, however, allow
> local governments to impose sales/use taxes, and has some of
> the highest local rates in the country.
>
> Actually, one state, Michigan, does have a VAT, but it is
> not the invoice/credit VAT of the European model. Instead,
> it is an addition-method VAT, known as the Single Business
> Tax. Also, if you put the New Hampshire Business Profits
> Tax and the Business Enterprise Tax together, it comes to
> pretty much the same thing.
Hawai'i does not have a sales tax. Instead there is a gross
receipts tax, called the General Excise Tax, at 4%, except
for some transactions (mainly at the wholesale level) which
are taxed at 0.5%. Retail sales businesses are allowed to
"breakout" the GET on bills / invoices, where it appears as
a 4.16% tax (since, again, it is on the gross receipts).
There have been estimates that the effective rate at the
retail level is as high as 13%. There is also a use tax on
imported goods and services. I do not recommend the Hawai'i
system.
scott s.
Per
>> In the EU, this problem seems to have been solved in an
>> acceptable manner. The export seller, as related above,
>> gets a refund.
> True, but on direct sales (the problem here in the US)
> current law would suggest you either end up with the
> equivalent of the use tax (where the buyer reports and pays
> over his/her VAT) or the VAT simply won't be charged.
>
> That is, to use your example, if I (located in Arizona) buy
> products from Amazon.com (located in Washington), just how
> would Arizona get its tax?
Basically, that's the problem with a VAT or sales tax system
that charges the tax on the basis of the buyer's
country/state. It has (hitherto) worked for the EU because
cross-border sales to consumers were not that common. With
the new currency, the euro, I foresee a complete tax rate
harmonisation and a VAT system that charges the tax for
intra-EU sales on the seller. That would make sure that the
tax is actually paid. It would also reduce the need for tax
administrations to provide VAT refunds.
In the US, a non-harmonised VAT system that charges the tax
on the seller is of course impossible, since that would
force sales out of the state with the highest VAT rate.
Per
william wheeler
>> One other important issue here--the various sales tax
>> systems are *NOT* national in scope, so it's not really the
>> case that there is one consumption tax system we are using
>> in the U.S. Some states have no sales tax whatsoever.
> Which states have VAT, sales tax or no consumption tax
> at all?
The state of Oregon on the west coast of the USA north of
Cal south of WASH has no Consumption tax ( sales) nor do we
have a VAT(that I know of) when ever a sales tax is put to
a vote of the people it going down on the order of 2 to 1
Katie Jaques
> receipts tax, called the General Excise Tax, at 4%, except
> for some transactions (mainly at the wholesale level) which
> are taxed at 0.5%. Retail sales businesses are allowed to
> "breakout" the GET on bills / invoices, where it appears as
> a 4.16% tax (since, again, it is on the gross receipts).
> There have been estimates that the effective rate at the
> retail level is as high as 13%. There is also a use tax on
> imported goods and services. I do not recommend the Hawai'i
> system.
New Mexico has a hybrid system that is somewhat similar to
Hawaii's. In both states, the tax is a gross receipts tax
imposed on the seller; however, the seller is authorized to
collect it from the buyer. And in both states, there is a
compensating use tax.
From the consumer's point of view, the Hawaii and New Mexico
systems are not enough different from conventional sales/use
tax systems to classify those states as not imposing
sales/use taxes. Usually they are just lumped in with the
others. However, you are right, from the seller's point of
view they are quite different.
Frederick E. Jorden
Will they have to increase the size of the Lugano Train station?
Per
>> Basically, that's the problem with a VAT or sales tax system
>> that charges the tax on the basis of the buyer's
>> country/state. It has (hitherto) worked for the EU because
>> cross-border sales to consumers were not that common. With
>> the new currency, the euro, I foresee a complete tax rate
>> harmonisation and a VAT system that charges the tax for
>> intra-EU sales on the seller. That would make sure that the
>> tax is actually paid. It would also reduce the need for tax
>> administrations to provide VAT refunds.
>>
>> In the US, a non-harmonised VAT system that charges the tax
>> on the seller is of course impossible, since that would
>> force sales out of the state with the highest VAT rate.
> Will they have to increase the size of the Lugano Train station?
No. The Swiss franc is too strong for anyone to shop in
Switzerland. (Especially compared to my own crappy
currency. Give me euros or give me death! For a handful
euros. For a few euros more.)
Switzerland has a VAT. (See http://www.swisstax.com/cortax.htm)
Anyway, for sales from countries outside the EU there's no
reason to scrap the principle that VAT should be charged at
the rate of the consumer's country.
Per
meri...@gmail.com
to fool enough people to thinking you know what you're talking about, but you merely need to know more than the person paying you, to simplify things; I mean this in general, not to any specific person in this thread, to avoid conflict. Liberal educations and critical thinking are not what they used to be, now liberal just mean you want to give other peoples' money away.
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
meri...@gmail.com
John Levine
>On Friday, January 8, 1999 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Per wrote:
>> "Frederick E. Jorden" wrote:
>So I suppose there are no more sales of Swiss chocolate, no more sales of Swiss watches, no sales of Swiss Army knives, to be simplistic. Everyone in
>Switzerland must buy from other countries and truck it in and all the craftsmanship type work is farmed out to Eastern Europe, Africa, South America
>and Asia. Are swiss bankers even used by other nations' citizens? Are people coming for assisted suicide still? Perhaps they've licensed it all out.
>I'm just a simplistic, worthless idiot - don't mind me at all.
--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
dvds...@aol.com
Stan Brown
> I live in hawaii and noticed when i bought one item from autozone
> they charged me a ge tax twice for that one iten exact same tax
> twice ?
the invoice?
--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...