ofbiz-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From BJ Freeman <bjf...@free-man.net>
Subject Re: News: Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes
Date Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:07:46 GMT
the Data model book page271 show the accounting model tax due.
/application/accounting/data/demotGLsetupdata.xml gives a single account
     <GlAccountTypeDefault organizationPartyId="Company" 
glAccountTypeId="TAX_ACCOUNT" glAccountId="900000"/>
  if then numbering is not sufficent it can be expanded to meet the tax 
by state then municipality as well as special taxes, as subaccouts.
/application/accounting/data/demotaxauthority.xml has how to create 
state tax
The when and what to report, can be covered using agreements, 
so code and forms that does the reporting is the only thing not in ofbiz 
at this time.

Mike Z sent the following on 7/9/2010 8:35 AM:
> According to:
> http://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/RetailSalesTax/DestinationBased/DepartmentStreamLineFAQ.aspx
> "Remote sellers are businesses that sell products to customers in a
> state, using the Internet, mail order, or telephone, without having a
> physical presence in that state.  These sellers currently cannot be
> required to collect and remit sales tax as brick-and-mortar stores
> must do.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1992 (Quill vs. North
> Dakota) that the burden of collection was too high given the number of
> taxing districts in the country and variations among states as to what
> was taxable and at what rate."
> But once we are all on a "destination" based tax system (like WA and
> 20 other states), suddenly it becomes feasible if the states provide a
> method of collection and eliminate the "burden of collection".
> Interesting how remote sellers can "voluntarily" collect sales tax right now.
> "Twenty-one states have passed conforming legislation so far, not
> counting Washington.  The agreement went into effect on October 1,
> 2005, and over 1,000 remote sellers have already registered to begin
> collecting and remitting sales taxes on sales to purchasers in these
> states."
> I think Ofbiz could easily handle figuring out the tax rate of an out
> of state customer, but the accounting, reporting, and distributon of
> tax revenue are the real problems.
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, BJ Freeman<bjfree@free-man.net>  wrote:
>> you may want to read
>> http://www.tax.utah.gov/sst/
>> it supports the desination tax like other states as of 2009.
>> Matt Warnock sent the following on 7/8/2010 12:48 PM:
>>> Currently brick-and-mortar sales taxes are collected where the STORE is.
>>> Thus a store in Salt Lake City may have an extra local transit tax that
>>> a store in an adjacent suburb does not.  But there is typically only one
>>> tax rate (the local one) collected, though that rate may vary for
>>> different types of goods, too (food vs. non-food are taxes differently
>>> in many states).
>>> Catalogs have had to collect multiple taxes in the past, but only for
>>> states in which they "do business" (which is more than just "have
>>> customers"), and it can be a nightmare, even if you know EXACTLY where
>>> you are shipping (which may be different than where the customer placed
>>> the order, or pays for it).  It tends to lead to turf wars between
>>> jurisdictions (if my warehouse is in Salt Lake, but my office is not, do
>>> I collect the transit tax or not?), and encourages "portable" businesses
>>> to move to sales tax havens like Nevada.  Congress has never really
>>> addressed this problem adequately for catalog companies.
>>> You seem to assume that internet retailers would collect taxes where the
>>> USER is.  That is a considerable jump in complexity for current
>>> practice, and many internet retailers selling digital goods (like
>>> ebooks) may have no idea where the user is.  All they have is a
>>> username, password, and a credit card number.  This is a complexity that
>>> arose with the internet, does not exist with brick and mortar stores,
>>> and has never been solved.  If I buy from an IP address in a Chicago
>>> hotel, using a Sacramento shipping address (perhaps my kid at college)
>>> and pay for it with a credit card with a Salt Lake billing address,
>>> which tax(es) do you collect?
>>> Congress granted the Internet an exception to avoid turf wars between
>>> all the various entities. Granted, it won't last, but I doubt that the
>>> solution of taxing based on USER location is either feasible, or as you
>>> say, inevitable.  There needs to be a global (or at least national)
>>> solution, and until it appears, the "need" is pretty speculative.
>>> I think OFBiz is flexible enough to create and use compliant tax rules
>>> for any kind of tax structure that might be settled on.  Some are more
>>> complicated than others.  If Congress does it, at least it will be
>>> consistent for the whole country.  Some schemes may require
>>> outside-the-box thinking and programming.  Just my opinion, though.

View raw message