I was discussing this issue in a thread that completely disappeared over at Rendo while we were waiting for DAZ to become operational.
I, too, am very interested in resolution, and feedback from DAZ officials.
As I stated in the other thread, I worked in management, and dealt directly with taxation issues.
Here in California sales tax is a state mandate collection tax at point of sale. There is no recourse of individuals for overtax claims. It’s not like the state collecting income, or luxury tax.
The businesses are charged with collection from giant corporations down to individual self-employed, but they all must adhere to Sacramento’s tax laws. One who collects taxes on the states behalf, but are not audited for that tax (meaning the state has no record of goods-and-services delivered) then that entity keeps it as an illegal profit.
Businesses are not charging us tax. They only collect on the states behalf, and there are caveats in place regarding what is or is not taxable. I believe Lindsey has presented a good case, and those attributing CA taxing of Amazon, well, the difference is two-fold in one; Amazon products are tangible goods, and two; A physical presence in the state of CA.
A for example of tangible goods for food markets would be as such; Imagine, if you will, you were purchasing gasoline (taxable) at your local fill-up/quick-mart, and you decided while there you might as well pick up a twelve-pack of beer (taxable), cigarettes (taxable), and a quick bite to eat. So, you pick out a Slim-Jim, a frozen burrito, a quick-mart hot dog, an Abba Zabba, and to top it all off, a fountain soda drink (hungry now, aren’t we?).
Upon purchase you discovered the whole of your purchases was taxed. Well my friends, you would have been illegally taxed, because the state would not collect tax on the Slim-Jim, frozen burrito, or the Abba Zabba (non taxable food goods). The two taxable food items are both taxed for different reasons; The hot dog, because it is a prepared service goods, and the soda, because of the CO2 tank.
This is just a small, inconsequential example, but I think you all get the point. If the business does not have a physical presence in the state, and is not selling tangible goods, they are not authorized to collect tax on behalf of the state. Unless the digital tax laws presented by Lindsey are outdated, and we have no access to current legislation, I believe there is a problem here.
Now, this all could be an easy glitch with DAZ’s new system, and just needs some attention paid to it. One way or another, I think we need some answers.
And, those of you who are saying they heard everyone was going to have to start collecting in the future (Sept., was it?). A business is not allowed to pre-tax their customers for future taxes. It’s a one-to-one basis. They can only collect when they are mandated to collect, because as of the mandated time they are liable for the logged goods-and-services taxation regardless if they collect or not. In other words, if they failed to collect the tax, but their books showed them selling a taxable product, the state would still make them pay the tax.
I believe this will be sorted. I have faith in DAZ. I think I’ll just hold off on purchases until there is some clarity. And for the record, I don’t mind paying the sales tax as long as CA is actually collecting the tax. It will be interesting to find out they will start collecting digital, non-tangible items.
Apologies for the long-winded tangent, take care all…