No state is gonna turn down money. Even Plano taxed airbnbs because of "the extra money they hadn't counted on coming in".....has nothing to do with extra service or the property tax being paid on it as a non homestead property......I'm sure the hotels pushed it since cities rape their guests in taxes. We stayed in fairview oklahoma and hotel taxes were 25% if I recall. Oilfields have them booked so they went for the money grab.
X
-
Originally posted by SaltwaterSlick View PostYep, for you Abbot-haters, he had nothing to do with that one... It was a Federal thing that began back in the 0-bummer administration and just worked its way through the court system all the way to the SCOTUS... decision was handed down that internet sales were taxable and it officially began Oct. 1... Or might have been Sept 1... don't remember for sure...
Not that it matters, but both of Obama's appointees dissented.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gunnyart View PostI may stop selling directly out of state if I have to remit to every liv'n state tax authority!!!
Not every state, every taxing identity, over 10,000 of them in the U.S. Pushed by large businesses that have the ability to cope with these regulatory burdens.
Comment
-
Sales Tax
Originally posted by meltingfeather View PostIt had nothing to do with Obama, and since the name of the case (South Dakota vs. Wayfair, Inc.) wasn't a clue, it wasn't a "Federal thing" either.
Not that it matters, but both of Obama's appointees dissented.
True, wasn’t a federal thing. What I should have said was SCOTUS ruling.
The point I was trying to make is that it isn’t unique to Texas.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLast edited by Clay C; 10-14-2019, 06:46 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by meltingfeather View PostIt had nothing to do with Obama, and since the name of the case (South Dakota vs. Wayfair, Inc.) wasn't a clue, it wasn't a "Federal thing" either.
Not that it matters, but both of Obama's appointees dissented.
1. it WAS a "federal thing" because it may have started at the state level, but progressed through Federal courts to the SCOTUS which is what I actually said.
2. It indeed started when Obama was the president in his administration. I did NOT say Obama had anything to do with it. I said it began when he was president as a timing issue. Had nothing to do with Abbott either.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SaltwaterSlick View Post1. it WAS a "federal thing" because it may have started at the state level, but progressed through Federal courts to the SCOTUS which is what I actually said.
2. It indeed started when Obama was the president in his administration. I did NOT say Obama had anything to do with it. I said it began when he was president as a timing issue. Had nothing to do with Abbott either.
By that logic everything that SCOTUS hears is a “federal thing,” which makes the term meaningless because it distinguishes nothing.
Comment
-
Sales Tax
Originally posted by Hunteraudit View PostI just see this as leveling the playing field. Why would it be OK for one entity to be taxed but not another engaged in the same business with the same customer. As noted above, pointing blind anger at Abbot is not well aimed.
Comment
Comment