Gov. Daugaard Calls Special Session For Sept. 12 To Address Implementation Of Sales Tax On Remote Sellers
PIERRE, S.D. – Gov. Dennis Daugaard has called a special legislative session to consider legislation that would expedite implementation of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. and allow the state to enforce the obligation of remote sellers to collect and remit sales tax.
After consulting with legislative leaders from both political parties, the Governor is calling the special session for Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2018, at the State Capitol in Pierre.
“South Dakota led the fight for tax fairness, which culminated with our historic win before the U.S. Supreme Court in June,” said Gov. Daugaard. “Thanks to that victory, other states are implementing tax changes as soon as Oct. 1, and I will be proposing legislation to allow South Dakota to join them.”
Draft legislation is currently being prepared by the South Dakota Department of Revenue, in consultation with the Attorney General’s office, and will be made available for review prior to the special session.
-30-
Another act by a tax and spend liberal.
i will be interested to see how the legislature treats this turn of events. the congressional hearing in the house judiciary committee was a fascinating collision of agendas the day they reviewed wayfair vs south dakota. you had grover norquist of americans for tax reform calling it a bad decision, and that it was a pretext for state revenue departments to apply taxes to people outside of the state borders, versus a state senator and lobbyist from utah, arguing the case of implementing states; that there are steps to ensure revenue neutrality; that there’s a below-$100-thousand threshold for small online businesses who do too little business to collect south dakota tax for remittance; and that anyone doing business in a state has to get a tax license, these online people should have to comply with that as well in some fashion. will south dakota conservatives take up grover norquist’s battle cry? wait and see i guess.
Conservatives need to stop this. Kristi said she wouldn’t raise taxes. Just a few more months people.
What do Kristi and Billie think?
Why should this be stopped? It doesn’t increase revenue to the state.
The state already passed the legislation that allows it to tax online sales, and it won the court challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court. Kristi Noem proposed legislation in Congress to reach the same result, and Billie Sutton also supported this effort as a legislator.
This session is about implementing the changes now that the state won the legal challenge.
If you analyze the shift in sales tax revenue from an across the boards 1/2% being lowered by an increase of 4% to 41/2% to all online purchases I’d bet the farm that lower income families will be helped out to a much greater degree than higher income online shopping families when the new 1/2 cent tax is lowered accordingly. And all things hopefully being equaled in sales tax main street business will upon implementation of the online tax be on the same footing as those out of State none brick and mortar businesses.
So I now get to pay sales taxes to states I’ve never even been to? Isn’t that going to raise my taxes? I call that a tax increase, which as a proud South Dakota Republican I deplore! No new taxes! Lock her up!
You mean you haven’t been following the law all this time?
From the South Dakota Department of Revenue: Sales and Use Tax Guide
Determine the location of the sale
Sales tax applies where the customer receives the product or service.
1.Products picked up at the seller’s location are subject to sales tax at that location.
2.Products delivered are subject to sales tax where delivered.
as i understand it, the quinn decision depended on buyers from out-of-state online sellers, who didn’t charge south dakota tax, to pay the tax themselves willingly. impossible as a practical matter, and the reason that brick and mortar businesses are required to collect and remit the tax. this puts the out-of-state online seller on par with the in-state business, and any other entity selling in south dakota – – you need a tax permit, and you need to remit the taxes collected, subject to state requirements.
That was the 1992 Quill v. ND decision, which 2018 Wayfair v. SD overturned. The Quill decision left the consumers of internet sales to report and pay a usage tax, which they often didn’t. Some states (SD since 2017) did impose “Amazon laws” that did coerce major online retailers to charge sales tax or their state. Post-Wayfair, all businesses with excess of $100,000 SD residents must collect and remit sales tax at the SD rate to all SD consumers.
Refusing to implement this measure hurts local businesses who are required to collect sales and thus less competitive with online retailers. This would then lead to lower revenues to the state, which would most likely mean further cuts to education and infrastructure (there is little chance of SD raising property taxes, sales tax, or implementing an income tax).
thanks.