Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
Current time: 10-25-2014, 05:37 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Nomos
Last Post: zonsb
Replies: 21
Views: 4824

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
12-19-2010, 01:08 AM
Post: #1
Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
Ok. Part II.

First, I'm not getting into further discussion on "to do" or "not to do."

I'm going to set the record straight. Marc may have misinterpreted (a tad) my point about the license and agreement.

My position is that application for and receipt of the retail license, just like the driver license, admits the imposition of a tax. It does not mean I'm saying it's voluntary (definitely not that) or involuntary (because we know it is). I am merely stating the observational fact of that sole and specific point.

As far as the voluntary or involuntary nature of the tax goes (for both parties), I am 99.9% sure that given the "choice" that includes not having to pay it, it wouldn't be paid. For this reason I hold the position in question of why should I want to continue to "reimburse" a victim that turns predator?

Huh? You asked what about those that don't know (which is the majority of lower level corp employees)? Well they (upper level corp employees) find out when you bring it to their attention. Then it is up to them to make a stand or not. I'm not saying it's not frightening, we all know on this forum know why it is. Nobody wants to get killed. But I stand so you stand, then we stand together.

Besides, I've said from the beginning my focus are the Corps. Me personally, I think the mom and pops stores are NOT where you want to try it, some reasons being as NonE mentioned, they’re barely making it.

The point of not paying sales tax (for me) are big corps. Wallgreens, CVS, Lucky's, AT&T, etc. I'm not concerned with the mom and pops. You can hardly find them anyway.

What really set me off was when I discovered that the CRV tax that is charged on beverages is the tax imposed on the DISTRIBUTOR, and NOT the retailer. So the distributor pass his tax onto the retailer, and the retailer passed it on to the consumer. So now I'm taking care of EVERY corps tax? Then the cell and phone companies, federal excise taxes. Excise taxes are defined by the courts as "a tax on the privilege of doing business." So the tax the corps are supposed pay are, you guessed it, passed to the consumer.

So that "60 cents" of tax adds up when all the other corps you deal with by necessity (gas co., phone, water and power, etc.) are included to that sum.


So with that said, and keeping the record clear, there are two agreements involved. The first is the license discussed above. The principles of dealing with it are the same as traffic citations

The second agreement lies between the retailer and the consumer. It has to be an agreement because of the imposition.

Quote:The sales tax is not a tax on a sale or because of a sale but is an excise tax for the privilege of conducting a retail business measured by the gross receipts from sales. Xerox Corp. v. County of Orange (1977, 4th Dist) 66 Cal App 3d 746, 136 Cal Rptr 583, 1977 Cal App LEXIS 1172.

The state has no claim against the purchaser arising out of a sale within the purview of this statute, which contemplates the imposition of a fixed rate of tax on the gross receipts and not on the individual sale of merchandise. Clary v. Basalt Rock Co. (1950, Cal App) 99 Cal App 2d 458, 222 P2d 24, 1950 Cal App LEXIS 1729.

Sales tax is not a tax on buyer, but a tax on seller, imposed on privilege of selling goods at retail, and while seller may pass tax on buyer, tax itself is imposed on seller and its payment is his primary obligation; buyer has no direct obligation, insofar as state is concerned, for payment of tax. Market S. R. Co. v. California State Board of Equalization (1955, 1st Dist) 137 Cal App 2d 87, 290 P 2d 20, 1955 Cal App LEXIS 1159.


Here are my opinions (for whatever they're worth) on an approach to the seeking non-payment of sales tax. (And I'm still refining the details.)

I'm going to approach it from a contractual perspective. Contracts can be rescinded within 72hrs. However, AS SOON AS I receive my receipt, I'm going to examine it and observe the sales tax applied. I'm going to ask to speak with a manager. Step off to the side and out of the way, because I have already accepted the offer of the good(s). There is a dispute as to the additional charge (the sales tax).

Because there is no clear notice that the retailer requests an agreement of reimbursement as a customer, I now have a claim in dispute as to my "agreement" to reimburse the tax.

The only argument that they will try to raise is "store policy." Where? Where's that policy posted?

If the manager doesn't want to settle the matter right then and return the sum taken for the sales tax, then I get contact information of general counsel.

Because of the resulting misrepresentations that the corps general counsel will no doubt make (akin to the kind Marc receives when confronting the facts), then I'm going to leverage that against both parties, because they know or should know because after being notified, the attorney (according to the rules) is required to advise his client to the proper course of action. The revenue and taxation code and supporting case law should establish that they knew they were making misrepresentations then I negotiate settlement for formal sales tax exclusion by corporate officials.

I know this is possible (the settlement for formal exclusion) from it being done with Nextel (when they were still in operation), and it's now Sprint.

Like Marc says video tape it.

However, (IMHO) I think the cashier is the wrong party to raise the issue of being charged or not being charged the sales tax. I would record in interview fashion though by asking "Who is REQUIRED to pay the sales tax?" "Is that what she was told by the company or what she pretty much assumed because "that's just how it goes?"

The proper party would be an officer, delegated officer, or business owner of the company and their legal counsel. Then I would ask them "Who is REQUIRED to pay the sales tax?"

Any other answer other than ME or THEM is non-responsive. The question is not who has to "collect" the tax, but "who is REQUIRED to PAY THE TAX?"

The claim cannot be made that since "you decided to shop here" you agreed, because there is no notice of it anywhere in the store, they don't tell you there is an option and they don't request "reimbursement." and they just lied by saying the REQUIREMENT is on the consumer, or they are evasive and don’t want to answer concretely.

I can't get refused service after that, because that could be construed as discriminatory. Discrimination could be construed as an unfair business practice because you caught the business in deceit. [Edit: discriminatory should probably be replaced by "retaliatory."]

I could probably ask customers for a quick interview as to who they believe is REQUIRED to pay sales tax and ask the question as to whether or not they have ever been told by the business that they are not?

Get their agreement to use their interview of course. There are general release forms on the web that can be deferred to as an example.

Why I would not even bother with attempting with the cashier is because in the corporate structure, if the employee is not authorized, and should a legal action result from the transaction, claims or admissions of the cashier, then what the cashier does or says would mean nothing and no proof of a claim of wrongdoing because the cashier had no power to bind the business by the admissions made.

I believe this method or some similar variation will not provoke the possibility of arrest or jail time and with some ironing out could be effective and beneficial.

Just how I would handle it and why in my humble opinion.

~Nomos 8)

ADDENDUM

Here is an interesting citation on the USE TAX I thought some may find interesting:

Woosley v. State of California (1992) 3 Cal 4th 758 Wrote:The use tax (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 6201 et seq.) complements the sales tax (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 6051 et seq.). The sales tax levies a tax upon the gross receipts of California retailers from sales of tangible personal property, while the use tax imposes an excise on the consumer at the same rate as the sales tax for the storage, use, or other consumption in the state of such property when purchased from any retailer. Since property covered by the sales tax is exempt under the use tax, all tangible personalty sold or utilized in California is taxed once for the support of the state government. Thus, the use tax is applied to goods purchased from out-of-state retailers, which are not subject to California sales tax, thereby preventing such out-of-state retailers from enjoying an unfair advantage over local retailers. Woosley v. State of California (1992) 3 Cal 4th 758, 13 Cal Rptr 2d 30, 838 P2d 758, 1992 Cal LEXIS 5058, rehearing denied (1992, Cal) 1992 Cal LEXIS 6086, rehearing denied (1992) 4 Cal 4th 819, 1992 Cal LEXIS 6438, cert den (1993) 508 US 940, 124 L Ed 2, 113 S Ct 2416, 1993 US LEXIS 3612

I found it interesting because usually you'll see the reverse. You get taxed in the state you're in, but not taxed in other states.
Quote this message in a reply
12-19-2010, 01:42 AM
Post: #2
Re: Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
Nomos Wrote:So with that said, and keeping the record clear, there are two agreements involved. The first is the license discussed above. The principles of dealing with it are the same as traffic citations.

Nomos, could you explain this statement? I don't know what you are getting at here. Do you mean, perhaps, that an individual business should or could take this to court and use the Marc Stevens approach to getting it thrown out, or are you saying something else?

Nomos Wrote:I know this is possible (the settlement for formal exclusion) from it being done with Nextel (when they were still in operation), and it's now Sprint.

"from it's being done"? Does this mean that you personally got such an agreement with Nextel, or specifically know who did and can document it? Or are you saying that the general corporate policy of Nextel was changed somehow so that these taxes were formally excluded from collection by them.

I ask because I find it rather amazing that such could be done, and if it was a corporate change in policy then I'm wondering if there is a (legal?) precedent already extant which can be called upon for use in establishing the policy on a broad scale, i.e. perhaps against all corporations in general.

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-19-2010, 02:06 AM
Post: #3
Re: Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
NonEntity Wrote:
Nomos Wrote:So with that said, and keeping the record clear, there are two agreements involved. The first is the license discussed above. The principles of dealing with it are the same as traffic citations.

Nomos, could you explain this statement? I don't know what you are getting at here. Do you mean, perhaps, that an individual business should or could take this to court and use the Marc Stevens approach to getting it thrown out, or are you saying something else?

I'm saying if you have a small business you want to bring this with, yes Marc Stevens' approach addresses the same issues. Like I said, my focus is not on the small independent business owner. I'll be headhunting the corps.

NonEntity Wrote:
Nomos Wrote:I know this is possible (the settlement for formal exclusion) from it being done with Nextel (when they were still in operation), and it's now Sprint.

"from it's being done"? Does this mean that you personally got such an agreement with Nextel, or specifically know who did and can document it? Or are you saying that the general corporate policy of Nextel was changed somehow so that these taxes were formally excluded from collection by them.

I ask because I find it rather amazing that such could be done, and if it was a corporate change in policy then I'm wondering if there is a (legal?) precedent already extant which can be called upon for use in establishing the policy on a broad scale, i.e. perhaps against all corporations in general.

- NonE

Not me personally, but when I first got wind of this sale tax issue, I and two other guys that I knew dug in, researched it, and challenged the taxes. One guy is up north and the guy with Nextel is near me, so I worked with him in challenging it. He wanted to be the guinea pig and challenged it. So I've personally seen the e-mails between he and nextel's corporate office and its legal counsel, and personally seen the results. They only agreed to give back the previous 2 years, but he was to incur no more taxes on any further billing. The guy up North he has consistently had the sales tax charged returned to him after purchases.

There doesn't really need to be precedent. The beauty of the sales tax issue is that it is unambiguous who they seek to impose the tax on. Just look at what the court says the tax is on.

Quote:The sales tax is not a tax on a sale or because of a sale but is an excise tax for the privilege of conducting a retail business measured by the gross receipts from sales. Xerox Corp. v. County of Orange (1977, 4th Dist) 66 Cal App 3d 746, 136 Cal Rptr 583, 1977 Cal App LEXIS 1172.

Kind of hard to get around that.

~Nomos 8)
Quote this message in a reply
12-19-2010, 02:41 AM
Post: #4
Re: Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
Nomos Wrote:Like I said, my focus is not on the small independent business owner. I'll be headhunting the corps.

If you've read Nassim Nicolas Taleb's great book, The Black Swan, you will understand that corporations are much more fragile than small independent businesses. In fact, he points this out in this recent short CNBC interview. It is the big corporations which have required the big bailouts to survive. The entire Wall Street industry would be bankrupt without the money stolen from the little guys via fiat banking and such. Not to mention GM, Chrysler and so on.

I'm wondering, it appears from what you've said, that you already have evidence of a means of depriving the corporations of the reimbursement by the customer of the taxes imposed upon them - at least some of those taxes. If so, why is this not more public. Why is this not shouted from the roof tops so that ALL customers of such corporations would demand such changes?

Or is that what you are presently seeking to do?

I ask this since it seems to me that one or two people getting free of this tax burden is meaningless (except to those one or two people) and if any significant change is to be brought about it needs to be on a public, not private, scale.

Are you, by bringing this stuff up here in this forum, attempting to find a way of making this a mass public movement, or only presenting these ideas for the benefit of those individuals who desire to fight their individual fights?

Another thought... perhaps the methodology and specific data might best be laid out, as it is developed further, in the wiki (or "a" wiki), where it won't "scroll off the bottom" of the page as is more likely here.

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-19-2010, 11:29 AM
Post: #5
Re: Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
Nomos:

I think everything you wrote is true and I applaud you for your excellent research and the time and effort you spent composing it for this forum. Well done. However, I must continue to insist that the cashier is probably the best (but definitely not the only) "point of contact." The reason is because, remember, like I said in the previous thread, we're trying to get these people to move into the "grey market." Trying to convince a corporate bureaucrat or lawyer, firmly entrenched in the "red market," of doing that is not a winning proposition. Your best bet is to get the people on the front lines to be sympathetic to your cause, look the other way, and waive the sales tax for you. Case in point: the other day when I queried the cute blonde cashier at the pharmacy about the sales tax, I'm pretty sure I could have gotten her to give me a break on it (women swoon when I turn on the ol' charm Big Grin). I would have just told her I was conducting reseach on the "grey market" for a project and asked her if she'd like to participate. Of course, it probably wouldn't hurt to compliment her on her beauty as well. Wink No muss, no fuss, no corporate hoops to jump through, no lawyers, etc-- just 2 flesh-and-blood human beings interacting. And yes, I'm aware that she would have qualms and trepidations about doing it because it might mean her job if she gets caught. That's where your "salesmanship" comes into play. You have to convince them that it's the moral thing to do, and you only have a few seconds to do it. Difficult (especially since most cashiers won't be pretty, young, presumably naive blondes), but not impossible. Still, I think Nomos' method might be just as if not more effective, but good god, does it smack of effort! I'd rather not deal with corporate parasites if at all possible, but I'm funny that way. Tounge

He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
He's a New World man - Rush
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-19-2010, 01:05 PM
Post: #6
Re: Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
NonEntity Wrote:If you've read Nassim Nicolas Taleb's great book, The Black Swan, you will understand that corporations are much more fragile than small independent businesses. In fact, he points this out in this recent short CNBC interview. It is the big corporations which have required the big bailouts to survive. The entire Wall Street industry would be bankrupt without the money stolen from the little guys via fiat banking and such. Not to mention GM, Chrysler and so on.


Ok, but I don't get your point. My self, I'm really not concerned about how fragile they are. Especially when they're in my pockets without my knowledge or consent.

NonEntity Wrote:I'm wondering, it appears from what you've said, that you already have evidence of a means of depriving the corporations of the reimbursement by the customer of the taxes imposed upon them - at least some of those taxes. If so, why is this not more public. Why is this not shouted from the roof tops so that ALL customers of such corporations would demand such changes?

Or is that what you are presently seeking to do?

I ask this since it seems to me that one or two people getting free of this tax burden is meaningless (except to those one or two people) and if any significant change is to be brought about it needs to be on a public, not private, scale.

Are you, by bringing this stuff up here in this forum, attempting to find a way of making this a mass public movement, or only presenting these ideas for the benefit of those individuals who desire to fight their individual fights?


I can't answer as to why more people don't know. I suppose for the same reasons most people don't know about fiat currency, or the civil nature of traffic infractions even though they're prosecuted criminally, or that there is no duty to protect so therefore no duty to pay for protection.

All I seek are like minds NonE, my days of trying to save the world are over because the world doesn't want to be saved. But there are some who want to save themselves, and those are the ones I appeal to. All it takes to make change is for some to do SOMETHING to make change. I can't say WHAT anyone is going to do, but I put it here, because you raised the issue, Marc discussed it and mentioned what I've had some experience with, so I thought I'd share for those who may want to take up the issue themselves. And if they want to discuss it and develop a method with as much high speed and low drag as possible, then I'm definitely open to it.

I just don't like talking, complaining and making up excuses about things. I'm either going to do it or I'm not. So if no one wants to, that's fine, if some do, that's great! But, that's about the extent of it. I've been "shouting from the roof tops" since I first became aware, hardly anyone cares. Example, when I first learned about money and gold and silver, I started telling everyone about the source I learned from (which was EXCELLENT, check it out here), I even bought a lot of copies for close friends and families. Some didn't read, some didn't get into it. The author (I met him and we became good friends) even told me I was the single most copy repeat purchaser that he's had. I bought in on precious metals when silver was $8.25 oz., and gold was at $383 oz. Now some of those I was telling about it are like "you called it, I should have listened." But, STILL nobody is doing anything.

The author told me, which I have kept his advice in mind, and apply it to everything I do know, but he said, it is better if you tell them about it, but let them purchase it. Let them make the choice. Hearing that I started remembering stories from my Aunt (who was a social worker), and she would tell me that people change when they are "ready to," and there is nothing and no one that can make anyone do anything. These are just a couple of examples, but there are others.

Next, if everything new (or different) to be done is measured on the scale of what everyone else is doing or not doing, then things will never get off the ground or accomplished for them.

This information has been available (that I know of) since the early 90s when someone sued a major phone company for the exact same thing and was successful. The courts have ruled long ago those charges are inapplicable, but the way the judicial system works is that the cases only pertain to the parties involved, so the companies basically have the same position as the courts "an objection not raised is waived."

NonEntity Wrote:Another thought... perhaps the methodology and specific data might best be laid out, as it is developed further, in the wiki (or "a" wiki), where it won't "scroll off the bottom" of the page as is more likely here.

- NonE

Great idea.

~Nomos 8)
Quote this message in a reply
12-19-2010, 01:10 PM
Post: #7
Re: Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
Dionysus Wrote:Nomos:

I think everything you wrote is true and I applaud you for your excellent research and the time and effort you spent composing it for this forum. Well done. However, I must continue to insist that the cashier is probably the best (but definitely not the only) "point of contact." The reason is because, remember, like I said in the previous thread, we're trying to get these people to move into the "grey market." Trying to convince a corporate bureaucrat or lawyer, firmly entrenched in the "red market," of doing that is not a winning proposition. Your best bet is to get the people on the front lines to be sympathetic to your cause, look the other way, and waive the sales tax for you. Case in point: the other day when I queried the cute blonde cashier at the pharmacy about the sales tax, I'm pretty sure I could have gotten her to give me a break on it (women swoon when I turn on the ol' charm Big Grin). I would have just told her I was conducting reseach on the "grey market" for a project and asked her if she'd like to participate. Of course, it probably wouldn't hurt to compliment her on her beauty as well. Wink No muss, no fuss, no corporate hoops to jump through, no lawyers, etc-- just 2 flesh-and-blood human beings interacting. And yes, I'm aware that she would have qualms and trepidations about doing it because it might mean her job if she gets caught. That's where your "salesmanship" comes into play. You have to convince them that it's the moral thing to do, and you only have a few seconds to do it. Difficult (especially since most cashiers won't be pretty, young, presumably naive blondes), but not impossible. Still, I think Nomos' method might be just as if not more effective, but good god, does it smack of effort! I'd rather not deal with corporate parasites if at all possible, but I'm funny that way. Tounge

Thank you for your kind words.

I like to cut these things off at the knees or go for the jugular. Having to "convince" and "swoon" is the "jumping through hoops" in my opinion. The language is too clear to have to do that. Plus, you're only limited to that one transaction. That's the great thing about those believing they are "following the law" and "attorneys" they have guidelines that they HAVE to follow, while we non-believers are free to see and do things from many more perspectives. True they don't always follow it, but the failure to do so have consequences as long as they want to keep pretending.

Now if you want to gather some good intel on some things then by all means, have a talk with the pretty blonde LOL

~Nomos 8)
Quote this message in a reply
12-19-2010, 01:51 PM
Post: #8
Re: Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
Nomos Wrote:Ok, but I don't get your point. My self, I'm really not concerned about how fragile they are. Especially when they're in my pockets without my knowledge or consent.

Point? I'm spozed to have a POINT? LOL

I just found it a fascinating book on the dynamics of life. Reading it changed my world view and I was just sharing it. It presents the concept of risk and risk management in a way that is completely different and in direct contrast to the way that most of the world assesses these things currently. It blew me away. I'm curious and enjoy learning new ideas. Sorry if you consider that an intrusive post or whatever.

It was not intended as an "actionable" post with respect to the specific topic of this thread.

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-19-2010, 02:10 PM
Post: #9
Re: Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
NonEntity Wrote:
Nomos Wrote:Ok, but I don't get your point. My self, I'm really not concerned about how fragile they are. Especially when they're in my pockets without my knowledge or consent.

Point? I'm spozed to have a POINT? LOL

I just found it a fascinating book on the dynamics of life. Reading it changed my world view and I was just sharing it. It presents the concept of risk and risk management in a way that is completely different and in direct contrast to the way that most of the world assesses these things currently. It blew me away. I'm curious and enjoy learning new ideas. Sorry if you consider that an intrusive post or whatever.

It was not intended as an "actionable" post with respect to the specific topic of this thread.

- NonE

Oh, so the point was "check out the book." I was focused on the fragility of the corp part. ;D

~Nomos ;D
Quote this message in a reply
12-20-2010, 12:31 PM
Post: #10
Re: Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
Any news to report from the "grey market warriors?" Big Grin I have nothing since I haven't left the condo building in like 3 days. It's COLD out there!! ZOMG!! Tounge

He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
He's a New World man - Rush
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-22-2011, 01:51 PM (This post was last modified: 10-22-2011 02:34 PM by Dionysus.)
Post: #11
RE: Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
Okay, I have a story to relate. I went to my favorite little Mexican restaurant down the street today. I always get the same thing, and the price is always the same. But today, the price had increased. I remarked to the cashier, "you must have raised your prices," to which she replied, "yeah, we did." While waiting for my order, I studied the receipt. Technically, she lied to me. The price of the food items was exactly the same. The difference? The stupid sales tax! It had increased such that I had to pay 50 cents more on my order (around 10 dollars). That's a pretty whopping increase. The criminal bureaucrats of Cook County, Illinois, must have jacked up the sales tax-- again (I try not to follow the news, so I missed it if they did). So, I'm going to seriously consider Nomos' idea about boycotting the sales tax. I expect to be refused service by some places, so if I do it, I'll start with the ones I would care the least about being alienated from. But I can't live without my Mexican food (it's healthy, delicious and reasonably priced given the quality), so that will be one of the last places I try it on. l'll keep the board up-to-date.

He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
He's a New World man - Rush
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-23-2011, 11:16 PM
Post: #12
RE: Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
You missed a vital point. The case states that it is a tax on the business for doing business. not on the person purchasing the product or service. You could take the business to court for a refund because they charged you more then the marked price. they are not authorized to pass the tax on to you (technically) you are not the one doing business, your just a customer and they have extorted monies from you. I know of a person who does not pay the taxes on his water, power, and phone bills. he refuses. every month he pays the bill less the tax. they can't cut him off because he did pay the bill. he told them that the tax is on them and he is not going to pay their tax. He has been doing this for years and he has to send them a letter every month when he pays stating why he refuses. They tried to cut him off, one time and he filed in court and they settled before it got there.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-24-2011, 12:41 AM
Post: #13
RE: Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
(10-23-2011 11:16 PM)crazy in crazyland Wrote:  You missed a vital point. The case states that it is a tax on the business for doing business. not on the person purchasing the product or service. You could take the business to court for a refund because they charged you more then the marked price. they are not authorized to pass the tax on to you (technically) you are not the one doing business, your just a customer and they have extorted monies from you. I know of a person who does not pay the taxes on his water, power, and phone bills. he refuses. every month he pays the bill less the tax. they can't cut him off because he did pay the bill. he told them that the tax is on them and he is not going to pay their tax. He has been doing this for years and he has to send them a letter every month when he pays stating why he refuses. They tried to cut him off, one time and he filed in court and they settled before it got there.

It's too bad Nomos isn't around anymore, because I'm curious to hear how this worked out. I understand that the tax is being charged to the business, but I'm not understanding where the business is prevented from passing the cost on to the customer. If I see an advertisement for a new computer that is $799.99 plus tax, haven't I agreed to pay the tax when I purchase the item?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-24-2011, 02:12 AM
Post: #14
RE: Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
Jumping in late here:

Couldn't you just tender the correct amount (minus the tax amount), and let the cashier attempt to explain why she/he's demanding additonal payment (over and above the offer price)?
Quote this message in a reply
10-24-2011, 06:01 AM (This post was last modified: 10-24-2011 06:06 AM by zonsb.)
Post: #15
RE: Sales Tax (Part II): Appropriate Point of Contact?
(10-24-2011 02:12 AM)Jonathanr Wrote:  Jumping in late here:

Couldn't you just tender the correct amount (minus the tax amount), and let the cashier attempt to explain why she/he's demanding additonal payment (over and above the offer price)?

A simple negotiation if accepted the change is initialed by both parties.

What's likely to happen would go something like this: It's the store/company policy. I'm just doing my job. (Following orders.)

I'd like to talk to the store manager, please.

Bob, (he's the store manager) let me get this straight, Bob. You're telling me this store provides a valuable service to the community. To which I agree -- great store you've got here, Bob. And you can only stay in business so long as you pay the government/mafia their alleged protection money -- that's a politically incorrect term for tax; just as tax is the politically correct term for theft -- or else government agents with guns will shut down the store and seize -- that's a politically correct term for steal -- the inventory thus depriving the community of a vital service -- not to mention the employees losing their jobs. That's the opposite of protection -- it's value destruction. And that is store/company policy and thus your policy!?

--

The thought of how far the human race would have advanced absent initiatory force
staggers the imagination.

THE POINT: Unlike the government thief, a common thief doesn't claim his "craft" is honest.
Lawyer-like dishonesty a point: The common thief is honest when he tells you he's robbing you.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)