Customers may not have to pay sales tax when they purchase items over the internet from a business in a state they do not live in. BUT, they do pay shipping charges. Which in most cases are higher then the sales tax would be.
The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 9 it states: No tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any state. Export means articles or items shipped over state lines to any other state or country. (See Federalist Papers 42 (11 and 12) Supervision of Interstate Commerce). *Some feel this applies only to the Federal Government and not the states. Q: How do you feel about it after reading the “Federalist Papers 42 (11 and 12) Supervision of Interstate Commerce”? The following is from “Federalist Papers: In Modern Language”: #11 An important objective of this power was to give relief to the states that import and export through other States and are forced to pay improper contributions levied on them. #12 In Switzerland, where the union is very slight, each canton(state) must allow merchandise passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without additional tolls. Note: To the best of my knowledge before 1992, States were not allowed to charge sales tax on purchases being shipped over state lines. Why was that if not for unencumbered trade in a UNITED nation? Email: Fremont
Article 1, Section 10 states: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or exports,…….
In Amendment 14 it is stated: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND the State wherein they reside. (No state you do not physically live in or physically do business in should be able to tax you as you are not a citizen of that State. – Fremont’s opinion)
The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1992 decision in Quill Corporation v. North Dakota protects out-of-state businesses in the Internet era from overreaching by revenue-hungry states. The Court’s decision prevents a state from forcing an out-of-state business to serve as the state’s sales tax collector if the business has no physical presence in the state and simply takes sales orders by Internet, catalog, or telephone. Congress has under consideration legislation (S. 1832) to overturn the Quill Corporation decision. To support a strong national economy and encourage fiscal responsibility among the states, Congress should reject the legislation. – David S. Addington, The Heritage Foundation
See more on the Internet Sales Tax by clicking here.
Fremont’s opinion: I feel that this ruling was incorrect as you will note in Article 1, Section 9 or Article 1, Section 10 there are no exceptions allowing for the nonsense of physical presence in a state when the items were shipped from out of state. It seems to me the Supreme Court made a law. Isn’t Congress the only ones allowed to make law? For over 200 years the States were not allowed to collect taxes on items shipped over state lines. This law is nothing more but a way for the poorly run state governments trying to bail themselves out on the backs of the sovereign of citizen of other states.
See below North Carolina’s US Senator Richard Burr reason for violating NC citizens sovereign rights.
An email from Congressman Mark Meadows
As you may know, H.R. 684 authorizes each member state under the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement to require all sellers not qualifying for a small-seller exception to collect and remit sales and use taxes with respect to remote sales under provisions of the agreement, but only if such agreement includes minimum simplification requirements relating to the administration of the tax, audits, and streamlined filing. This Act defines “remote sale” as a sale of goods or services into a state in which the seller would not legally be required to pay, collect, or remit state or local sales and use taxes unless provided by this Act.
I have yet to take a position on this particular piece of legislation. In general, I am against new laws that make the internet less useful and that increase tax burdens. This bill does provide protection for small businesses that have made traditional investments in retail facilities. This bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law. Therefore, I am following this legislation closely. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind should this legislation come to the House floor for a vote. Again, thank you for contacting my office. Your feedback and suggestions are always welcome. It is an honor to serve as your United States Congressman. If you have not done so already, please visit my website – www.meadows.house.gov – and sign up for my eNewsletter.
Member of Congress
Click here to watch: New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte cites Cato Institute research on the Mainstreet Fairness Act on C-SPAN 2.
Click here to read: Congress Should Not Authorize States to Expand Collection of Taxes on Internet and Mail Order Sales.
Click here to read: The Fraudulent Marketplace Fairness Act, by Glenn Jacobs.
Click here to read: 9,646 Reasons to Dislike the Internet Sales Tax.
On March 22, 2013, the Senate passed an amendment to the budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 8) expressing support for the implementation of the Marketplace Fairness Act by a vote of 75-24.
Over twenty Republican Senators sold us out on May 5th, 2013 and voted to tax sales on the Internet.