Just Browsing?

[gljjt]

June 8, 2014 was the invoice date. The invoice also has product from two other companies that are marketplace. But I figured it out! Dietary supplement = nontaxable!!! Now you have look up taxable status as well for potential use tax items! But it strengthens my point, these laws are too cumbersome for consumers to easily manage. Or could at least be made easier. The actual charge against my card was a single charge that encompasses both Amazon.com LLC and Amazon Marketplace. I never looked that close and assumed if Amazon took my money in a single transaction, they were the seller/reseller with drop ship. I guess not. Again, cumbersome. However, if you only make a couple of transactions a year, for high dollar guns let's say, no sales/use tax may be due if the seller has no nexus in Texas, under the occasional use exemption. From my bank statement:

CHECK CRD PURCHASE 06/06 AMAZON MKTPLACE PM AMZN.COM/BILL WA 432386XXXXXXXXXX 464154563214197 ?MCC=5942

Thanks for the sparring, I learned a lot!

[them]

Now that makes sense. :) Well...as much as anything to do with taxes ever does.

E.g. think about this:

If you buy 10 items at $9.99 each, that is 10*9.99*0.0825=8.24175. Rounded off that is $8.24 in tax, right?

Nope.

9.99*0.0825=0.824175. Rounded off that is $0.82 in tax for each item. $0.82*10=$8.20 in tax for the total sale.

That is perfectly legal and is actually a good way to judge just how savvy a retailer is. By law retailers must hand over every penny they charge buyers under the headding "sales tax", so if the receipt shows ten $9.99 items and sales tax of $8.24 they are obligated to give $8.24 to the state. If the receipt shows sales tax of $8.20 for the same order, $8.20 goes to the state. Either way the state is happy. The only difference is that one has the consumer paying more tax than they truly owe.

From what I have seen Amazon pretty reliably calculates sales tax per item so would collect $8.20 for this hypothetical order. Not everyone gets this right though.

All of which is just more evidence that this is a way-too-complicated area for the average taxpayer to get right. Someone ordering a bunch of stuff from retailers without a local nexus could easily end up overpaying their use taxes by doing the obvious thing of adding up all the purchases and multiplying the sum by the tax rate.

[psijac]

Though I prefer to shop local, I also buy online. Bargain hunting is prudent; but that was not the point of the OP. He asked if it is acceptable to use the merchant's MONEY for his own advantage. (which is also to the detriment of the merchant)

The OP doesn't say anything about using merchant's MONEY for personal advantage...just about going to browse without the intention to buy.

This practice is free loading and it's the antithesis of commerce. It's also a major reason that our country is presently in the shape it is.

It's not freeloading at all. It's an expected and normal part of business. You always have and always will have window shoppers, it's not a new concept and does not catch anyone off guard. There is nothing unethical about it at all. Now where it would cross the line into unethical behavior is if you lied to the worker and presented that you were interested in buying from them. I can't count the number of times I've been in a store and someone has come ask if they could help me and I simply said "No thanks, I'm just browsing." Their universal response is then, "Ok, I'll be over here, let me know if you need anything or have any questions." And sometimes I actually do go get them to ask questions or have them help me in some way...and they are happy to help. It's a part of good customer service.

That's part of business and it will never change...and no one should feel guilty about it (I sure don't! ).

Store clerks are trained to asked you that as it is suppose to discourage shop lifters.

[jmra]

I have often been encouraged by sales people to handle merchandise after I've made it very clear that I am just looking. At that point I don't have any issue with taking up their time. Now if I'm talking to them and another customer walks up I step aside and ask them to take care of the other customer.

[pancho]

June 8, 2014 was the invoice date. The invoice also has product from two other companies that are marketplace. But I figured it out! Dietary supplement = nontaxable!!! Now you have look up taxable status as well for potential use tax items! But it strengthens my point, these laws are too cumbersome for consumers to easily manage.

Texas should just slap 8% tax on everything sold. Everyone pays their share. No exceptions for groups with better lobbyists. Why is a popsicle taxable but a fudgsicle is not?

[srothstein]

That is not quite correct. If the seller doesn't collect sales tax they are suppose to collect, you are not responsible to pay sales or use tax for their mistake. That is explicitly spelled out in the tax code. You are responsible to pay use tax in most other circumstances, but you do not have to make up their failure to meet their responsibility.

Could you tell me which section of code you are referring to, please? The way I read section 151.102 of the Tax Code, you are responsible for the use tax unless it is collected by the retailer. I could easily be wrong on this since I have never yet paid a use tax or really worried about it.

[gljjt]

That is not quite correct. If the seller doesn't collect sales tax they are suppose to collect, you are not responsible to pay sales or use tax for their mistake. That is explicitly spelled out in the tax code. You are responsible to pay use tax in most other circumstances, but you do not have to make up their failure to meet their responsibility.

Could you tell me which section of code you are referring to, please? The way I read section 151.102 of the Tax Code, you are responsible for the use tax unless it is collected by the retailer. I could easily be wrong on this since I have never yet paid a use tax or really worried about it.

It is in the TAC, not the TC. Sorry.

I re-read what I think I read before, and my memory must be failing as I could only find non-applicability for payment (when the seller fails to collect) if it is a Texas seller. But wouldn't anyone with Nexus in Texas, be a Texas seller? Idk!!!! Also, I was mistaken, you still have liability, but only if the State comes after you. The reference and a quoted snippet are below. I may not have been completely correct previously. Also, this may contradict the TC, I admit, I did not read the TC in entirety. This why internet advice is worth what you pay for said advice. Makes for good discussion though.

Texas Administrative Code
TITLE 34 PUBLIC FINANCE
PART 1 COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
CHAPTER 3 TAX ADMINISTRATION
SUBCHAPTER O STATE SALES AND USE TAX
RULE §3.346 Use Tax

(1) Use tax is not applicable if the purchaser of a taxable item paid sales tax to a Texas seller or owes sales tax to a Texas seller who failed to collect it. The comptroller may proceed against the seller or the purchaser for the sales tax owed by either.