You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ofbiz.apache.org by Mike Z <mz...@gmail.com> on 2010/07/07 16:30:12 UTC
News: Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes
I came across this news article this morning, and I immediately
thought of my previous question were I asked about the "TaxWare"
status of ofbiz. It was also noteworthy (to me) that only BJ
responded to my inquiry.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20009603-38.html
So: Is ofbiz ready for the inevitable? Eventually, we'll be required
to collect sales tax (and report) on a nation-wide basis for all
ecommercce transactions. How will this possibly work?
Re: News: Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
each state is required to have a database of taxes for the wireless
industry.
The Washington State legislature adopted the Mobile Telecommunication
Sourcing Act (the Act), chapter 67, laws of 2002. The Act implements
federal legislation that establishes uniform rules for determining the
place of sale of mobile telecommunication services (wireless telephone
service).
so they provide a GIS database.
http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/wiredownload.aspx
I expect other states will provide the same soon.
http://www.nga.org/cda/files/001129WIRELESS.pdf
ofbiz is capable of storing this info as it is laid out.
it is good down to zip+4
the only thing left is to find all the URL for downloads and make the
appropriate import datafile for them.
following the zipsales example of pulling in the data.
in my case i already had a tax base that I implemented in ofbiz as a SAS.
the ofbiz service follows more the taxware way to communicate with my
SAS server.
=========================
BJ Freeman <http://bjfreeman.elance.com>
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=52>
Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man
Mike Z sent the following on 7/7/2010 7:30 AM:
> I came across this news article this morning, and I immediately
> thought of my previous question were I asked about the "TaxWare"
> status of ofbiz. It was also noteworthy (to me) that only BJ
> responded to my inquiry.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20009603-38.html
>
> So: Is ofbiz ready for the inevitable? Eventually, we'll be required
> to collect sales tax (and report) on a nation-wide basis for all
> ecommercce transactions. How will this possibly work?
>
Re: News: Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes
Posted by Mike Z <mz...@gmail.com>.
The reason I asked about TaxWare was because it is the only tax
service that still seems to be operational (from ofbiz), and is
certified by Washington State. As far as I can tell, ZipSales was
discontinued. As Dave points out, things are only going to get more
complicated, and it would be nice if a service was available that you
could easily plug into OFBiz, and things just work. In WA state,
there are 1.6 million different ZIP+4 possibilities in 350 different
tax jurisdications. Crazy.. So I was looking for a simplier way.
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:32 PM, BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net> wrote:
> two points:
> 1) the states are changing from nexus to point of delivery.
> from Washington State page
> Effective July 1, 2008, sales tax collection is based on the location where
> the customer receives the merchandise or service. For retailers that ship
> or deliver their products this is a change in how sales tax is determined.
> 2) he asked a very specific question about Taxware for 9.04.
> no one by me replied.
> I did a google and searched my emails from 2003 to present.
> I did not find any documentation about the someone actually using Taxware.
>
>
> David E Jones sent the following on 7/7/2010 9:06 AM:
>>
>> I'm not sure what it means to you that only BJ responded to your question,
>> but if you'd like to clarify I imagine someone will comment.
>>
>> TaxWare has been supported for a long time, but it is not used very often
>> because it is an expensive system and there are many alternatives. These
>> days most people using OFBiz get tax data from their accountant or from a
>> subscription service and then put that into the OFBiz TaxAuthority tables,
>> or they use an online service instead of something complex and messy like
>> TaxWare that requires time-sensitive data updates on a regular basis.
>>
>> This is extremely complex stuff (and looks like it will be getting
>> worse!), so count on this requiring some expense and effort. In the past,
>> for the USA anyway (it's different for each country), a company only had to
>> charge taxes for states, counties, and cities where they have a "nexus".
>> Because of that we have to support a crazy variety of tax laws, but
>> individual companies usually only need tax data for a few different tax
>> authorities. If this law passes (depending on the details) that could change
>> a lot.
>>
>> Is OFBiz ready? Sure. OFBiz has been doing tax stuff for about 8 years
>> now. This isn't likely to be a whole lot different than anything done in the
>> past, but it will increase the expense and complexity for users of the
>> system to either maintain far more tax data, force subscribing to a service,
>> or use of one of the many complete sales tax services (like TaxWare).
>>
>> How does everyone feel now about the opportunity to work part-time for a
>> few or perhaps hundreds of government bodies as a tax collector? Sales tax
>> calc companies might be a good thing to invest in, and online retailers
>> might want to not only get calc services but also make sure they have
>> indemnification guarantees for when it's wrong.
>>
>> -David
>>
>> BTW, if you really want a question answered the mailing lists are a good
>> start but consider this: if you aren't willing to do the research to get an
>> answer to your own question, why would you expect someone else to do it for
>> you?
>>
>>
>> On Jul 7, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Mike Z wrote:
>>
>>> I came across this news article this morning, and I immediately
>>> thought of my previous question were I asked about the "TaxWare"
>>> status of ofbiz. It was also noteworthy (to me) that only BJ
>>> responded to my inquiry.
>>>
>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20009603-38.html
>>>
>>> So: Is ofbiz ready for the inevitable? Eventually, we'll be required
>>> to collect sales tax (and report) on a nation-wide basis for all
>>> ecommercce transactions. How will this possibly work?
>>
>>
>
Re: News: Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
two points:
1) the states are changing from nexus to point of delivery.
from Washington State page
Effective July 1, 2008, sales tax collection is based on the location
where the customer receives the merchandise or service. For retailers
that ship or deliver their products this is a change in how sales tax is
determined.
2) he asked a very specific question about Taxware for 9.04.
no one by me replied.
I did a google and searched my emails from 2003 to present.
I did not find any documentation about the someone actually using Taxware.
David E Jones sent the following on 7/7/2010 9:06 AM:
>
> I'm not sure what it means to you that only BJ responded to your question, but if you'd like to clarify I imagine someone will comment.
>
> TaxWare has been supported for a long time, but it is not used very often because it is an expensive system and there are many alternatives. These days most people using OFBiz get tax data from their accountant or from a subscription service and then put that into the OFBiz TaxAuthority tables, or they use an online service instead of something complex and messy like TaxWare that requires time-sensitive data updates on a regular basis.
>
> This is extremely complex stuff (and looks like it will be getting worse!), so count on this requiring some expense and effort. In the past, for the USA anyway (it's different for each country), a company only had to charge taxes for states, counties, and cities where they have a "nexus". Because of that we have to support a crazy variety of tax laws, but individual companies usually only need tax data for a few different tax authorities. If this law passes (depending on the details) that could change a lot.
>
> Is OFBiz ready? Sure. OFBiz has been doing tax stuff for about 8 years now. This isn't likely to be a whole lot different than anything done in the past, but it will increase the expense and complexity for users of the system to either maintain far more tax data, force subscribing to a service, or use of one of the many complete sales tax services (like TaxWare).
>
> How does everyone feel now about the opportunity to work part-time for a few or perhaps hundreds of government bodies as a tax collector? Sales tax calc companies might be a good thing to invest in, and online retailers might want to not only get calc services but also make sure they have indemnification guarantees for when it's wrong.
>
> -David
>
> BTW, if you really want a question answered the mailing lists are a good start but consider this: if you aren't willing to do the research to get an answer to your own question, why would you expect someone else to do it for you?
>
>
> On Jul 7, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Mike Z wrote:
>
>> I came across this news article this morning, and I immediately
>> thought of my previous question were I asked about the "TaxWare"
>> status of ofbiz. It was also noteworthy (to me) that only BJ
>> responded to my inquiry.
>>
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20009603-38.html
>>
>> So: Is ofbiz ready for the inevitable? Eventually, we'll be required
>> to collect sales tax (and report) on a nation-wide basis for all
>> ecommercce transactions. How will this possibly work?
>
>
Re: News: Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes
Posted by David E Jones <de...@me.com>.
I'm not sure what it means to you that only BJ responded to your question, but if you'd like to clarify I imagine someone will comment.
TaxWare has been supported for a long time, but it is not used very often because it is an expensive system and there are many alternatives. These days most people using OFBiz get tax data from their accountant or from a subscription service and then put that into the OFBiz TaxAuthority tables, or they use an online service instead of something complex and messy like TaxWare that requires time-sensitive data updates on a regular basis.
This is extremely complex stuff (and looks like it will be getting worse!), so count on this requiring some expense and effort. In the past, for the USA anyway (it's different for each country), a company only had to charge taxes for states, counties, and cities where they have a "nexus". Because of that we have to support a crazy variety of tax laws, but individual companies usually only need tax data for a few different tax authorities. If this law passes (depending on the details) that could change a lot.
Is OFBiz ready? Sure. OFBiz has been doing tax stuff for about 8 years now. This isn't likely to be a whole lot different than anything done in the past, but it will increase the expense and complexity for users of the system to either maintain far more tax data, force subscribing to a service, or use of one of the many complete sales tax services (like TaxWare).
How does everyone feel now about the opportunity to work part-time for a few or perhaps hundreds of government bodies as a tax collector? Sales tax calc companies might be a good thing to invest in, and online retailers might want to not only get calc services but also make sure they have indemnification guarantees for when it's wrong.
-David
BTW, if you really want a question answered the mailing lists are a good start but consider this: if you aren't willing to do the research to get an answer to your own question, why would you expect someone else to do it for you?
On Jul 7, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Mike Z wrote:
> I came across this news article this morning, and I immediately
> thought of my previous question were I asked about the "TaxWare"
> status of ofbiz. It was also noteworthy (to me) that only BJ
> responded to my inquiry.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20009603-38.html
>
> So: Is ofbiz ready for the inevitable? Eventually, we'll be required
> to collect sales tax (and report) on a nation-wide basis for all
> ecommercce transactions. How will this possibly work?
Re: News: Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes
Posted by Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>.
Thanks for the pointer. Like I said, it is a nightmare. Among other
things, it says non-nexus sales are to be taxed at the destination rate.
But if there is no nexus, why does the seller have to collect the tax at
all? That is the constitutional problem. Localities can't just assume
the power to tax (or otherwise regulate) the whole Internet and force
compliance to their local whims. Hence the national exemption.
--
Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 22:57 -0700, BJ Freeman 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.
Re: News: Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
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,
partyrelationships.
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<bj...@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.
>>
>
Re: News: Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes
Posted by Mike Z <mz...@gmail.com>.
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 <bj...@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.
>
Re: News: Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes
Posted by BJ Freeman <bj...@free-man.net>.
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.
Re: News: Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes
Posted by Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>.
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.
--
Matt Warnock <mw...@ridgecrestherbals.com>
RidgeCrest Herbals, Inc.
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 07:30 -0700, Mike Z wrote:
> I came across this news article this morning, and I immediately
> thought of my previous question were I asked about the "TaxWare"
> status of ofbiz. It was also noteworthy (to me) that only BJ
> responded to my inquiry.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20009603-38.html
>
> So: Is ofbiz ready for the inevitable? Eventually, we'll be required
> to collect sales tax (and report) on a nation-wide basis for all
> ecommercce transactions. How will this possibly work?