🚀 go-pugleaf

In Article <waltm-0506952207360001@rock30.calon.com>, waltm@calon.com (Walt
Milliken) wrote:
>In article <3qv71n$5de@ccnet3.ccnet.com>, tweek@ccnet.com (The R R M
>Tweek) wrote:
>
>>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... 
>
>There is a discussion of this issue in the current issue of Business
>Week.  Currently case law apparently allows sales tax collection only if
>the company has "real" assets in the state (sales office, warehouse,
>etc.).  As a result of Internet business, there is a move underway to
>redefine doing business in a state to include electronic business.  You
>might want to inform your representatives (state and Federal) about your
>feelings on this subject.

A few years ago, the state of Mass. tried to make any vendor who sold
anything at MacWorld Boston collect sales tax on all sales mail ordered from
Mass. from then on, saying that their participation at MacWorld established
a presence in Mass.

I don't know what the final outcome was, or even if it final by now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  M. Steiner                      |  ____  Don't assume I'm straight.  /\   |
|  steiner@best.com                |  \  /    Don't assume I'm not.    /  \  |
|                                  |   \/                              ~~~~  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------