←back to thread

295 points AndrewDucker | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.262s | source
Show context
WUMBOWUMBO ◴[] No.45044734[source]
Clueless human, but what stops a company from ignoring these laws from certain states? How is this enforceable if a company doesn't have any infrastructure within that state?
replies(5): >>45044771 #>>45044813 #>>45045074 #>>45045223 #>>45045523 #
VWWHFSfQ ◴[] No.45045074[source]
> How is this enforceable if a company doesn't have any infrastructure within that state?

It's a good question. Maybe something with interstate commerce laws?

replies(1): >>45045151 #
petcat ◴[] No.45045151[source]
There used to be the "Oregon sales tax loophole" where residents of neighboring states (Washington, California, Idaho) would make large purchases (car) just over the border in Oregon where there was no sales tax.

That loophole got closed once inter-state data sharing became possible and Oregon merchants were required to start collecting those out-of-state taxes at the point of sale.

replies(3): >>45045203 #>>45046040 #>>45048413 #
chrismcb ◴[] No.45045203[source]
That wasn't a loophole. It was just a bunch of people evading taxes.
replies(3): >>45045285 #>>45045431 #>>45045437 #
petcat ◴[] No.45045285[source]
> people evading taxes

Avoiding taxes. It's different. It was always perfectly legal to travel to another state to buy something expensive and bring it back home. No crimes were committed.

It was a loophole that you could buy in Oregon specifically to avoid $1,000s in sales taxes.

replies(4): >>45045339 #>>45045611 #>>45045732 #>>45046063 #
dragonwriter ◴[] No.45045611[source]
> It was always perfectly legal to travel to another state to buy something expensive and bring it back home.

It was legal to do that. If it was purchased out of state with the intent of bringing it back home, then (assuming the home state was California) California use taxes were always owed on it. Other states with sales taxes also tend to have similarly-structured use taxes with rates similar to the sales tax rates.

They were legally avoiding sales taxes, but also illegally evading use taxes, and, moreover, there is very little reason for the former if you aren't also doing the latter, unless you just have some moral objection to your taxes being taken at the point of sale and the paperwork and remittance to the government being done by the retailer instead of being a burden you deal with yourself.

replies(2): >>45045816 #>>45046511 #
VWWHFSfQ ◴[] No.45045816[source]
I think the point was that interstate data sharing closed the loophole on evading use-taxes. Now states report to each other about large purchases. It's no longer possible to buy a car or tractor in Oregon and never report the unpaid sales tax back to Washington or California. They will know.
replies(1): >>45045870 #
1. dragonwriter ◴[] No.45045870[source]
I was addressing the debate that that prompted over whether the situation before that was tax evasion or mere tax avoidance, but yes, the point about interstate data sharing is what that tangent spun off from several posts upthread.