Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
Here's one of my reasons for shopping online:
Free Delivery of Large of Heavy Items.

It's brought straight to my door and I sign for it.

Revival of Brick and Mortar Stores?
Hmmmm...I believe what is coming our way after the Retailocalypse ends (yes, retail brick and mortar stores are in an apacalyptic state) will be the strong and those that worked hard to bring forward an ecommerce presence.
There is a Retail brick and mortar Ice Age that has been coming and is going to get worse.

Those that survive did their due diligence and prepared.

Buyers are used to shopping online.
Buyers love the convenience of shopping online, open 24/7 and there are sites that review products.
Buyers LOVE that they can shop online and not have to walk into a store to purchase and save their time for other more important things.

My son purchased a set of books recently from Amazon (for one of his college classes).
The books were the same price in our local Books A Million.
With a full time job, two children, a wife and life...You can bet your sweet bippy he ordered it online and it came in 2 days.

Did he mind paying tax?
Do I mind paying tax when I order online?
Does my disabled daughter who does the majority of her shopping online mind paying taxes?

That's my two cents.
I truly don't think that they even think or search out help before posting:
Can I sell on Amazon but ship products from Costco to buyer?
How to print 4x6 shipping labels for packages to FBA?

Nexus no longer matters.
Anyway....Amazon already collects and remits sales tax to a few states.
Unless the 3rd party seller does it. 
For sellers that use Amazon’s Tax Collection Services, it’s business as usual.
Of course, that's for Amazon Sales.
My eBay sales will be different, but I do suspect there will be some sort of ease that will be built in.

Take this in the way in which it's presented because it's not gospel, it's just good advice:
According to my 'tax guy,' more than likely Amazon is going to collect sales tax from all sales and remit it to the states.
As he said, corporate ecommerce companies (and companies that have the ability for brick and mortar AND ecommerce) have already been collecting in every state, and it works.
There will be some bumps in the road, but that is to be expected.

I have an eBay, etsy and an eCrater store, I'm gonna sit back and see how this plays out.
Luckily, I am blessed to have tax advice and I'll pass that along as I receive.

Hope this helps.
* E-commerce In The News / Re: Supreme Court Ruling Affects eSellers
« Last post by WayOutWest on June 21, 2018, 03:56:54 PM »
And that's exactly it.  You dont buy online to save a few pennies on sales tax.  Sure, you may do it on large purchases, but. . .  People buy online because of convenience, selection, and pre-tax price.

I often buy my toilet paper online. Why? Because it's under 70cents a roll delivered to my door Vs. $1 a roll at local store ($1.09 per roll w/ sales tax). So even ignoring the sales tax it's cheaper to buy it online.  Anther example, before taxes are added, the diesel additive I buy for the truck can be gotten locally for about $120 a case, or I can get it shipped to house for $100. Hmm. Which to choose?

I also buy hardware online. Why? Better selection. For example, one time I needed some bolts in a particular size. I tried buying locally but nobody had them. Amazon did. The next time I needed some odd sized screws, where do you think I looked first?

And, being able to shop at 3am, or when I simply don't feel like getting ready and driving to town, is huge.

As for the ruling, frankly I'm shocked. SCOTUS just opened the door to states having jurisdiction over people who live and work in other states and never set foot in their state. Mark my words, what'll happen next is states will use this ruling as a means to start requiring out of state vendors to file state income tax.
* Amazon Central / Re: New FBA Amazon Fulfilled Inventory Message
« Last post by uncleleroy on June 21, 2018, 03:38:56 PM »
I tried the new beta version and it wasn't too bad. Looks very close to "manage inventory" but without the FBM products. Heck, I could do the same thing with "manage inventory" by clicking on the circle "fulfilled by Amazon". So, just how bright are these coders? Obviously not very.
* Amazon Central / Re: June 20th 2018 Seller Central Poll
« Last post by uncleleroy on June 21, 2018, 03:34:27 PM »
I snickered and then ignored it.
I know what you mean. And if you call them out for not bothering to do their due diligence, you get lambasted as "hateful", "mean", "rude" and run the risk of getting your post flagged by over-sensitive snowflakes.

* E-commerce In The News / Re: Supreme Court Ruling Affects eSellers
« Last post by uncleleroy on June 21, 2018, 03:31:48 PM »
I didn't see this when posting the entire WSJ article in the Amazon forum. That thread can be deleted by an admin since there is no need for a duplicate thread on the issue.

This taxation is stupid but expected. For all the analysts on CNBC bragging about the upcoming revival of brick-and-mortar stores, I don't see it. The online migration has been in full force and will continue to increase. I'm not going to go to some brick-and-mortar store to save 30 or 50 cents and spend hours looking for everything I need in multiple stores. I'm going to spend 10-15 minutes online and have it in my possession within 2-3 days.
* Amazon Central / Quill Overturned--What does it mean for us?
« Last post by uncleleroy on June 21, 2018, 02:31:08 PM »
This is not going to be good. From WSJ:

"States have the authority to make online retailers collect sales taxes, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, opening a new chapter in economic history where e-commerce is treated as a mature player in a marketplace that is no longer defined by trips to the corner store or shopping mall.

By a 5-to-4 vote, the court closed a loophole that helped fuel the early growth of internet sales, overruling its own 1992 precedent that forbid states from requiring merchants to collect sales tax unless those sellers maintained a “physical presence” within the state’s borders.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who suggested years ago that the precedent should be updated for the digital age, wrote for a majority that defied conventional ideological lines. Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined his opinion, along with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

Justice Kennedy said the “physical presence” rule, always doubtful, had become untenable in the digital age The court cited studies suggesting that the current rule costs states up to $33.9 billion annually in uncollected sales taxes. Justice Kennedy said the old rule “limited states’ ability to seek long-term prosperity and has prevented market participants from competing on an even playing field.”

In dissent, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts spoke for liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, arguing the decision, with its vast implications for the national economy, should remain with lawmakers.

“E-commerce has grown into a significant and vibrant part of our national economy against the backdrop of established rules, including the physical-presence rule,” the chief justice wrote. “Any alteration to those rules with the potential to disrupt the development of such a critical segment of the economy should be undertaken by Congress.”

Congress, under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, could at any time have altered the rule the court imposed in 1992.

The ruling likely will spell the end of an era in which consumers could save on taxes by purchasing goods online instead of from local merchants.

The justices’ decision overturned a 1992 high court ruling involving mail-order businesses that said states can only require tax collection by merchants who are physically located in the state’s borders.

The ruling is a victory for states that argued tax-free internet sales were costing them billions of dollars in revenue. It is also a big win for brick-and-mortar stores, which have to compete against online rivals that don’t have to collect the taxes on internet purchases.

Some large online retailers, such as Inc., already collect state sales tax on products they sell directly, but others don’t.

Amazon originally set up its business model to avoid state sales taxes, limiting its physical presence to just a handful of warehouses. But in recent years, it changed strategy to build more warehouses closer to consumers, as it has relied more heavily on its Prime two-day shipping offer—and started charging sales tax on items it sells directly.

Amazon hasn’t collected the taxes for most independent merchants who sell items on Amazon’s platform.

About $200 billion in sales originated with independent merchants selling on Amazon world-wide last year, according to Factset analyst estimates. That compares with roughly $116 billion in direct sales by Amazon. The company declined to comment on the ruling.

The case before the high court was brought by the state of South Dakota, which enacted a law in 2016 that required merchants to collect the tax. The state then set the stage for test litigation by suing out-of-state online sellers including Wayfair Inc., Inc. and Newegg Inc.

The companies’ stocks moved lower after the decision was released. Amazon’s was down about 1%, while Wayfair’s stock dropped nearly 7% before recovering slightly. Etsy’s stock at one point fell about 5%, and eBay’s was down more than 2%.

Wayfair said it collects sales tax on approximately 80% of its U.S. orders and didn’t expect the decision to have “any noticeable impact on our business, as it may on other retailers who do not currently collect and remit sales tax.”

“While we believe the court was not the ideal venue for creating this level playing field, we expect that today’s decision will bring clarity and certainty to this issue,” the company said.

Online marketplaces Etsy Inc. and eBay , where millions of small businesses sell their wares, noted in statements that the court had recognized a potential distinction between big internet retailers and smaller retailers.

Small online businesses have been using Amazon, eBay and Etsy to build their sales for years and have argued a blanket legislative solution is needed to prevent the high cost and burden of complying with different rules in each state.

“Now is the time for Congress to provide clear tax rules with a strong small business exemption,” an eBay spokeswoman said.

Before the court’s ruling, eBay Chief Executive Devin Wenig warned in an interview with The Wall Street Journal of an “extremely chaotic” environment if the Supreme Court handed states more authority to force companies to collect such taxes.

“Every state loves this tax because you get to tax people who can’t vote for you,” Mr. Wenig said. “You get to tax businesses that aren’t in your jurisdiction, so this is the favorite tax of every state legislature.”

Shares of real-estate investment trusts for shopping centers rose on the ruling. Perhaps the biggest boost came to a newly public company called Avalara Inc. that makes a type of tax-compliance software many smaller merchants may now need. Its shares were up 19% in recent morning trading.

State legislators and big-box stores had tried unsuccessfully for years to push Congress to give states the authority to require sales-tax collection. The U.S. Senate passed a bill in 2013, but it died in the House, caught in a fight between anti-tax Republicans and Republicans who back the brick-and-mortar retailers.

Thursday’s opinion is likely to spur a new push for a federal law to limit states’ ability to require tax collection by small businesses and to restrain cross-border audits. This time, however, it will be Internet retailers and catalog businesses seeking guardrails on state action, and they’ll have the burden of mustering majorities in a Congress.

“We are now really comfortable with Congress continuing its path of not acting on this issue,” said Max Behlke, director of budget and tax policy for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

States are expected to examine their existing laws and consider implementing new ones, Mr. Behlke said. “It’s not like tomorrow the world’s going to change. But in the next 60 days, I think we’ll see states start to move forward,” he said.

Steve Delbianco, president of NetChoice, an e-commerce trade group, said Congress should act immediately to create rules for states and retailers to follow.

“A brick-and-mortar business won’t have to comply with the differing rules of over 12,000 tax jurisdictions, or integrate costly and complex tax software into its operations,” Mr. Delbianco said in a statement. “But small web businesses will, eating away at their already razor-thin profit margins. When these businesses disappear, consumers will be the biggest losers.”

The decision produced an unusual split among the justices. Joining Justice Kennedy were three of his conservative colleagues, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, as well as liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justice Kennedy’s opinion eliminates the physical-presence test but doesn’t set out a bright-line rule about exactly when a state’s sales-tax collection law might impose an impermissible burden on interstate commerce.

Justice Kennedy did note that the South Dakota law at issue wouldn’t apply retroactively, included an exception for small business and offered retailers software and clear definitions to help merchants comply with the sales tax requirement."

You beat me posting this!

Supreme Court rules states can require online retailers to collect sales tax
Read the article in full at this link:

The justices broke with 50 years' worth of legal rulings that barred the states from imposing sales taxes on most of the purchases their residents make from out-of-state retailers.
by Pete Williams / Jun.21.2018 / 10:22 AM ET / Updated 11:24 AM ET

WASHINGTON — Online shopping will soon become more expensive, after the U.S. Supreme court ruled Thursday that states can require Internet retailers to collect sales taxes.

The 5-4 decision broke with 50 years' worth of legal rulings that barred the states from imposing sales taxes on most of the purchases their residents make from out-of-state retailers.

The decision was a victory for South Dakota, which asked the court to uphold its recently passed law imposing an Internet sales tax.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10