Keep in mind the state sales tax rate in some states does not include local sales and use taxes, which can often double the sales tax in some states. In New York, for example, the 4% state sales tax is joined by an average 4% local sales tax, which effectively means buyers pay an average 8% sales tax, varying with the jurisdiction.

The U.S. Supreme Court has given states a green light to begin imposing state and local sales taxes on all online purchases, regardless of where an internet retailer is located, ending a long-standing competitive advantage for online retailers.

In a 5-4 decision, the court sided with state tax authorities and brick and mortar retailers who argued it was unfair to collect sales tax from businesses with a physical presence while allowing shoppers to effectively bypass those taxes by shopping online. The decision decisively overturned a 1992 landmark ruling that allowed most internet purchases to avoid the automatic collection of sales tax, as long as a company did not maintain any offices or stores in a state where the buyer was located. Despite the earlier ruling, many states including New York never surrendered their right to collect sales tax on all online purchases, but were forced to rely on the honesty of state taxpayers to voluntarily disclose those purchases on tax forms — something few taxpayers did.

The decision is perceived as a significant blow to Overstock.com, Newegg.com, and Wayfair.com — three online retailers that went far beyond other online retailers to avoid charging sales taxes on most purchases. When states threatened to sue to impose sales taxes when retailers maintained commission and referral programs that paid in-state, third-party businesses to refer internet traffic to those retailers, many terminated affiliate relationships in certain states just to continue avoiding the collection of sales taxes.

Amazon.com, among the largest of all online retailers, was an early target of state taxing authorities. After years of fighting, Amazon conceded and gradually began collecting sales taxes for all 45 states that impose them. Amazon Marketplace purchases, sold by third-party vendors, were not charged sales tax. After today’s decision, most expect that will change soon.

The ruling will likely be a boon to state coffers, bringing each state an estimated $8-33 billion annually in new tax revenue and growing, according to one federal report. Research by Barclays found that states that rely the most on sales tax revenue to fund their budgets will benefit the most from the decision. Those states are Louisiana, Tennessee, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Alabama. Because states like New York, Illinois, and California already aggressively collect state sales taxes on many online purchases, the benefits to those states will likely be more modest.

The competitive advantage to online retailers who do not charge sales tax has gradually declined in many instances over the years because of dramatically higher shipping costs. Those shipping costs are not borne by brick and mortar stores, but they have always collected sales tax and face more expenses that online retailers do. Despite that, shortly after the decision was announced, investors punished exposed e-tailers including Overstock, Wayfair, and eBay with lower stock prices.

Some small businesses were relieved the Supreme Court decided to upheld the South Dakota law that exempted retailers with less than $100,000 in sales or 200 transactions annually from collecting that state’s 4.5 percent tax on purchases. Many are hoping state tax authorities will maintain similar exemptions for small internet businesses that would otherwise be faced with dramatic new costs collecting the correct state and local taxes and paying them to the appropriate tax authorities.

The decision was an unusual liberal-conservative split among the justices. Joining Justice Kennedy in the majority were three of his conservative colleagues, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, as well as liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the dissenters, joined by liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Time Warner Cable is increasing the cost of renting your cable modem. In the third increase in ten months, using the company-provided cable modem will now cost subscribers $5.99 a month. But the costs don’t stop there. Last week, Time Warner announced it was raising the price of its broadband service an average of $3 a month. Taken together, the cost of standalone 15/1Mbps broadband with a leased modem will now cost $61 a month.

SB6141 is a DOCSIS 3 modem

Time Warner introduced its $3.95 monthly modem rental fee last fall. In June, the company announced it was raising the price of the modem rental to $4.99 a month for new customers,  and has now decided customers can afford to pay more — $6 a month for equipment that costs the cable company, on average, less than $50 per unit according to Wall Street analysts.

CEO Glenn Britt remarked earlier this year that customers accepted the modem rental fee with few complaints. Britt foreshadowed the modem rental fee increase saying the company had significant room to boost prices, noting Comcast charges $7 a month for its modem.

Customers can escape modem rental fees altogether by purchasing their own equipment. At Time Warner’s new prices, most customers will recoup the cost of the equipment within one year. Unfortunately, as news of the modem rental fee increase made its way to retailers and eBay resellers, prices have soared for equipment on Time Warner Cable’s approved modem list.

The popular Motorola SB6141, which sold for $78 two weeks ago, has now shot up to $99.99 in anticipation of a new wave of buyers. Prices on Newegg have also increased from $78 to $99.99 as of this morning. Best Buy has also boosted prices to $99.99. Amazon still lists this white version of the SB6141 this afternoon for $87, but is expected to quickly sell out.

Based on the last two waves of price increases, if thinking about buying your own modem the time to buy is right now because major retailers are likely to temporarily sell out and eBay resellers will begin a wave of price increases in response to demand.

Stop the Cap! top rates the Motorola SB6141 among the modems on the approved list. It is DOCSIS 3 capable, which means it will support faster Internet speeds. But also be aware that if you upgrade to a DOCSIS 3 modem, Time Warner’s Speedboost technology, which delivers a few seconds of additional speed at the start of a download, will no longer work. Speedboost is gradually being phased out by most cable operators so we still think buying a DOCSIS 3 modem makes the most sense over the long term.

Company-owned store or third party reseller?

Customers who see the logo of their favorite wireless phone company on a storefront might do better to look a little closer to determine if they are doing business with a company-owned store, or a third-party reseller.  A Bakersfield, Calif., man quickly learned the difference when he bought a mobile broadband service plan from Go Wireless that Verizon says no longer exists.

Allan Fox found out the hard way when his first bill arrived with a steep overlimit fee attached, and without the broadband plan he signed up for.

Fox purchased the discontinued plan from Go Wireless, a third party reseller of Verizon Wireless services.  Fox thought he was purchasing a 3GB plan for $35, with a two-year service contract.  Verizon thought otherwise, and so began weeks of a runaround between Fox, Go Wireless, and Verizon.

It turned out that Verizon no longer offered the plan Fox bought from what he thought was Verizon Wireless itself.  Go Wireless is one of several independent third party companies that resell Verizon Wireless service, often with their own terms and conditions that include early termination fees owed not just to Verizon, but also to Go Wireless.

Go Wireless’ retail stores prominently feature Verizon Wireless’ logo, with their own logo appearing in reduced size, next to a message indicating they were a “premium retailer.”  That presumably sounds better than “third party reseller.”

After several attempts to straighten out the mess, Fox wanted to cancel his contract and just move on.  But then he discovered Go Wireless would charge him a $175 early cancellation fee, even though Fox’s predicament was their fault.  That’s when Fox called a local television newscast for help.

Wirefly is a major online reseller of Verizon Wireless

KBAK-TV news waded into the middle of the dispute that had gone on for nearly six weeks.  Verizon Wireless told the station it was willing to cancel Fox’s service penalty-free, but since Fox purchased the phone from a third-party reseller, and not from a company-owned store, Go Wireless would have to credit their own cancel fee.  Go Wireless, experiencing some turnover in local management, finally agreed to waive the fee, but only after the TV station got involved.

Customers must be careful when purchasing phones or signing contracts with third party sellers — both online and in traditional stores.  Most company-owned stores display their respective carrier logos and nothing else.  Words that usually provide a clue you are dealing with a reseller include: “authorized retailer,” “authorized dealer,” “Service provided by: (name of third party company),” “authorized agent,” and a dead giveaway is a signed contract with anyone other than the cell phone company you are using for service.

Third party resellers make their money on generous commissions earned when a customer signs a new contract or renews an existing one.  That commission can be forfeit if a customer returns the phone or cancels service early, which is why third party dealers protect themselves with their own contracts that include early termination or cancellation penalties owed to them, not the wireless provider.  Some customers can find themselves exposed to $500 or more in total cancellation penalty fees owed between the wireless phone company and the reseller.

So why do people purchase phones from these resellers?  Convenience and savings.

In smaller communities, company-owned stores may be few in number (or non-existent), and in-person help can be a godsend for customers who need to figure out their phone or obtain a warranty replacement.  Online, resellers like Amazon.com, Newegg, Wirefly, and others often charge substantially less than wireless carriers charge themselves for phones.  That savings can often be more than $100.  But these resellers are not for those who are unsure about the phone they want (or the provider).  Returning a phone or canceling service means dealing with two parties — the carrier and the reseller, to end service.  The cost of doing so can be very steep, so always read the terms and conditions before buying.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KBAK Bakersfield Man has Internet billing trouble 9-26-11.mp4[/flv]

KBAK-TV’s Investigation Bakersfield unit helped a local man untangle a major billing mess that began when he was sold a mobile broadband plan that no longer existed.  (3 minutes)

America's most creative taxing authority, charged with collecting the innovative taxes the state government dreams up

No state can be more innovative in finding new ways to tax, fee, and surcharge residents than New York.  Once it becomes taxable in the Empire State, it’s only a matter of time before it becomes taxable in other states as well.  Now consumers face the prospect of paying new sales taxes on broadband and other services they purchase online, even in cases where federal laws would seem to exclude such possibilities.

New York residents have endured the so-called “Amazon tax” since June 1, 2008 when the state government demanded large, out of state Internet retailers collect and remit sales taxes for online purchases should they result from online advertising.  Although largely ignored by smaller online retailers, large high profile Internet retailers with so-called “affiliate programs” that pay independent websites for referring potential customers faced the choice of cutting ties with their “affiliates” in New York or imposing sales tax on New York customers.

Websites ranging from Overstock.com, Buy.com, Amazon.com, Newegg, and others were all targeted by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.  Overstock and Newegg eventually threw their New York affiliates under the bus to preserve an “unofficial” tax-free shopping experience for New Yorkers.  Buy.com and Amazon both complied with the state, although the latter filed suit challenging the constitutionality of out-of-state sales tax collection.

What made the New York sales tax law different from all the rest is that it delivered an end run around settled federal interstate commerce law.  A Supreme Court decision found it legal for states to demand sales tax payments from businesses that operate within their state, but no such provision was made for businesses who don’t locate an office or store in a particular state.  Buying a new hard drive from an online retailer inside your state?  You’ll be charged sales tax.  Order it from outside of the state, and the company typically won’t try to collect sales tax.

New York wants online businesses to get a new attitude.  It wants sales tax money for orders placed by New Yorkers no matter where your business is located.

As the Great Recession wreaks havoc on state budgets, state lawmakers who don’t want to cut popular spending programs are instead sniffing for new ways to raise revenues.  Some are declaring ‘I Love New York’ for blazing the trail to fatter sales tax coffers.

Colorado's legislature ignited a firestorm of controversy after passing an online sales tax bill into law

One recent example is Colorado, where state lawmakers borrowed liberally from New York’s tax law and passed their own — requiring large online retailers to start collecting sales taxes or provide a summary of residents’ web purchases in the state (so the Colorado taxing authority can pressure residents to declare those purchases and pay sales tax themselves.)  The penalty for not doing so is a fine of several dollars per non-compliant transaction.  Amazon.com, among others, yanked their affiliate program in the state, and some online retailers have declared they won’t comply.  A few proclaimed they would throw away any fine notifications, suggesting the state has no authority to impose such fines for interstate commerce, which is regulated on the federal level.

Rhode Island passed its own sales tax law, and collected almost nothing from it, in part because online retailers outside of Rhode Island almost universally ignored it.  Now the law faces repeal.

Other states like North Carolina and California have endured their own controversies over such legislation.  In North Carolina, Amazon.com threw their affiliates under the bus.  California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a sales tax proposal last year.  There are bills to impose sales taxes on all online purchases in Iowa, New Mexico, Vermont and Virginia.

Meanwhile, New York’s taxing authority has some new ideas on how to expand the scope of sales taxation to include a whole new range of online activities.

The E-Commerce Times reports the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has declared doing practically anything online that involves the transfer of money in return for a service could be subject to New York sales tax:

This new position results in the imposition of sales tax on purchases of services provided over the Internet that would not be subject to sales tax if provided in person by a human being. For example, the purchase of an educational course is not taxable if provided by a live speaker, but the same course may now be considered taxable by the Department if the course is given online.

The Department has painted with a broad brush to conclude in a number of advisory opinions that, among other things, the following services or forms of entertainment are really sales of software when provided over the Internet:

1. e-learning courses;
2. information technology courses;
3. mail-tracking services performed for airlines;
4. loan origination and processing services;
5. automobile insurance policy services;
6. payroll processing services; and
7. video games played on computers located at a business’ facility.

Rhode Island's efforts to collect sales tax on out of state purchases was a flop

The logic used to justify taxation of online services illustrates the time and talent state workers are willing to extend to help fill New York’s dire budget pothole:

The Department is asserting that a purchaser of an online service is controlling the software on the provider’s server by clicking various icons on his or her own computer screen, and thus the purchaser has control over the software; hence the software has effectively been “transferred” to the purchaser. Accordingly, the Department is taking the position that the purchase of an online service is really the purchase of a license to use software, even though the software is being used by the service provider on its own server.

Critics of the taxing authority accuse it of exceeding its legislative mandate.  In fact, the New York State legislature previously considered — and rejected — legislation that would have imposed sales tax on digital downloads like music and movies.  The legislature has been resistant to taxing online activities in hopes of retaining high tech businesses in the state, who might consider locating out of state if it meant avoiding imposing sales tax on consumers.

Of course, online buyers are technically subject to paying sales taxes for every taxable purchase, made in or out of state.  But since most states ask taxpayers to voluntarily report such purchases, the compliance rate is notoriously low.

In New York, the taxing authority has a reputation best summed up as “we don’t play — padlock and seize first, ask questions later.”  Aggressive enforcement against non-compliant retailers is likely, and E-Commerce Times suggests online retailers need to pay attention:

The sales tax is a transfer tax, and sellers collect the tax from purchasers and remit the tax to the Department. However, when a seller fails to collect and remit any tax due, the seller itself becomes liable for the tax, interest and possibly penalties. The Department has not been content simply to apply its new position going forward, but rather has been seeking to apply its position retroactively on audit as well.

There have been instances of the Department auditing online service providers and assessing sales tax as far back as 2005, even though the Department’s first clear administrative guidance with respect to its new position dates from November 2008 (and even though the Department issued administrative guidance in February 2006, that seems to conflict with its present position).

The Times predicts this will all come to a head when the taxing authority sues an online retailer or state resident for non-payment of taxes.  Then it’s up to the courts to decide… when they get around to it.  Remember the lawsuit Amazon.com filed against New York in 2008?  The New York Supreme Court threw out the suit in January 2009, but an appeal was filed with the next court up the chain — the appellate court — July 13th.  It’s still pending.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Online Sales Taxes 4-5-10.flv[/flv]

Here are three reports about the ongoing online sales tax controversy underway in three states (9 minutes):

1. KMGH-TV in Denver reports on a local family running a campaign to repeal the so-called “Amazon tax” in Colorado which resulted in the end of the company’s affiliate program for Colorado residents.
2. WCAX-TV in Burlington, Vermont discusses a proposed Vermont law that would extend sales tax to online purchases.  Local merchants support the proposed law as a way to restore pricing fairness between online and brick and mortar retailers.
3. WTVR-TV in Richmond, Virginia covers that state’s proposed online sales tax bill.  George Peyton from the Retail Merchant’s Association reminds viewers whether or not an online retailer charges them sales tax, they still owe the state the tax — declared on your income tax return.