CCH Tax News Headlines - February 5, 2009

John H. Fisher 17 years ago

Federal Headlines: -

formatting link

2/5/2009 - Senate Approves $15,000 Homebuyers Tax Credit
2/5/2009 - President Signs SCHIP Bill Funded by Increase in Tobacco Excise Tax
2/5/2009 - Expenses Related to Storage of Manufactured Homes; Capitalization Required (Load, Inc., CA-9)
2/5/2009 - Noncompetition Agreement Payment Was Ordinary Income, Not Capital Gain from Sale of Personal Goodwill (Muskat, CA-1)

State Headlines:

2/5/2009 - Connecticut --Sales and Use Tax: Legislation Introduced That Would Tax Certain Internet Sales
2/5/2009 - Hawaii --Sales and Use Tax: Bill Proposing to Tax Some Internet Sales Introduced
2/5/2009 - Pennsylvania --Multiple Taxes: Budget Proposal Would Create New Taxes, Raise Tobacco Tax

Missed a headline? Click here for last week's tax highlights. -

formatting link

Vote

D. Stussy 17 years ago

formatting link

...

Aren't these already federally preempted?

Vote

Alan 17 years ago

The State are pushing the envelope in how they define nexus. See the below link on New York's "Amazon Law", that other states are trying to emulate.

formatting link

Vote

D. Stussy 17 years ago

formatting link

The California Board of Equalization tried to do that - by "searching" package delivery companies (e.g. United Parcel Service) for out-of-state arrivals, and were stopped on the grounds it violated the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Not only do I not see anything different here, Congress has passed laws that specifically PREVENT any tax from being imposed just because the transaction took place over the Internet. Although "NY's Amazon" law also affects phone orders, the two items above specifically target the Internet. Under the 10th amendment, since Congress has already acted, why wouldn't these be pre-empted?

Vote

Alan 17 years ago

formatting link

I am not aware of any federal court decision or federal law that prevents a state from collecting use tax on purchases over the internet if they are able to show substantial nexus consistent with the USSC decision QUILL CORP. v. HEITKAMP, 504 U.S. 298 (1992).

formatting link

8 What the states are now trying to do is establish that nexus.

You are going to have come up with that federal law that you say Congress passed. I'm not aware of it.

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required