🚀 go-pugleaf

aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) writes:
>
>This is no longer true.  I can't be sure about FAO Schwarz, but I know
>that other companies have been sued by California for sales tax if they
>have any "presence" here at all; if FAO still follows this practice,
>they're doing something illegal.

It depends on the "type" of presence...  I remember when Calif first
started being hard nosed about this...  it was about 8 years ago and
was primarily directed at the Shopping channels.  The State "ruled"
that since the cable company was the presence for the shopping
channel folks, the shopping channel folks were responsible for
collecting (or at least paying out of their own pocket) the tax
reimbursment.

It wasn't only the cable shopping channels which were targets for this
tax, but thanks to their high priced lawyers, they fought California
and won in a Federal court. (this was about 3? years ago)

The lawsuit did not however change the requirement if a company had
a direct presence in California... but it might make all the difference
if FAO of New York was under a different branch of the main company 
than FAO of Calif. (or whatever...)  

Of course, all the above arguements aside, a California resident is 
still responsible for paying the sales tax on any item he/she purchases
from anywhere (if it is subject to sales or use tax), and if the seller
doesn't collect the tax reimbursment, then most Californians will 
calculate out the amount due, and remit it to the State Board of
Equalization...  (right?  Who doesn't do this?)


-- 
tweek@ccnet.com  tweek@tweekco.ness.com   WW4Net-1@11551  DoD #MCMLX  N6QYA
**** Regarding the Internet><WWIVNet gateway and other assorted stuff: ****
http://www.io.com/~tweek/     tweek@io.com     IM: Rev. Michael D. Maxfield