wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 9:37 pm, "BillP" wrote:
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message

...





On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:32:38 GMT, BillP penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:43:04 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

Try ordering some boat stuff on line. Many suppliers will charge you
your local sales tax as part of the transaction.

I buy a lot online and haven't paid state or local tax yet.

Ever.

As long as your not buying from a store with a presence in your state
you'll
never pay any sales tax, it's illegal.

You don't have any better grasp on this than you do global warming!
Please research the term "use tax."

Also see(for example):
http://www.maine.gov/revenue/salesuse/usetax.pdf
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/64i-2.htm
http://www.arkansas.gov/dfa/rules/et2006_9.pdf

Your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking.
A "use tax" is not a sales tax, and it can not be collected from a
company
that does not have a presence in the state in which the goods were sold.
In
Shortwaves case *he* is supposed to inform his state of all goods he
purchased from outside sources and pay the required tax himself. It is
illegal for the merchant outside of his state to collect it, or any tax.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ahem.....

State and local taxation of foreign exports and interstate commerce
has obvious U.S. constitutional limitations. 2 However, the U.S.
Supreme Court has clearly held that state and local taxing authorities
may impose taxes on interstate commerce despite the limitations of the
Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, provided that the tax has a
substantial nexus with the state, is fairly apportioned, does not
discriminate against interstate commerce, and is fairly related to the
services provided by the taxing state.

Ahem...

"provided that the tax has a substantial nexus with the state" is the main
test.

Here is the Supreme Court ruling-

The facts in Quill Corp. are as follows: North Dakota sent a notice to
Quill Corp. that it owed use tax (a companion tax to the sales tax) payments
for purchases that North Dakota residents had made through Quill Corp.'s
catalogue. Quill responded that it did not have nexus in North Dakota
because it had no physical operations or employees and hence did not have to
collect North Dakota use tax on sales made to North Dakota customers.

The Supreme Court sided with Quill, ruling that a taxpayer must have a
physical presence in a state in order to require collection of sales or use
tax for purchases made by in-state customers. Physical presence means
offices, branches, warehouses, employees, etc. The existence of customers
alone (i.e. economic presence) did not create sufficient nexus under the
Commerce Clause for North Dakota to impose a sales tax collection burden on
Quill Corp..


http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/963.html