![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 54,851
If you live in CT and have purchased from Newegg, you are likely aware that no type of sales tax was charged. However, CT has a law that states that customers have to self-report and pay a "use-tax" in lieu of a sales tax at the time of purchase. As you might guess, not a lot of folks do this either through ignorance or simply flaunting the law. Also, as you might guess, there has been little evidence the state had to enforce this. A source told us that Newegg has turned over 5 years of purchase history on customers to the state and that individual users and businesses are possibly on the hook for the 6.35% tax. The Connecticut DRS is reportedly sending out tax bills based on this information turned over by Newegg. If you live in Connecticut and are not already aware of this, I would highly suggest reading up on what is going on at the IRS Medic site that goes into great detail on this. Thanks Cresponia Rises.
There is a supporting article here from last year that goes into the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services issuing demand letters to "remote sellers."
For remote sellers with no physical presence in Connecticut that don’t wish to voluntarily collect and remit sales and use tax (consistent with the US Supreme Court’s precedent in Quill and Bellas Hess), they are given only one option–provide DRS with a semi-colon delimited text file containing 16 fields of data–including customer names, customer addresses, ship to addresses, item descriptions and quantities sold. But supplying such personal data about customers intrudes upon the privacy and First Amendment rights of the customer, and unconstitutionally deprives remote sellers of their property right in the data set without due process of law. Of equal concern, some sellers question whether DRS is appropriately limited in its ability to disclose or share the customer data it seeks.
"Once you know, you don't Newegg."
There is a supporting article here from last year that goes into the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services issuing demand letters to "remote sellers."
For remote sellers with no physical presence in Connecticut that don’t wish to voluntarily collect and remit sales and use tax (consistent with the US Supreme Court’s precedent in Quill and Bellas Hess), they are given only one option–provide DRS with a semi-colon delimited text file containing 16 fields of data–including customer names, customer addresses, ship to addresses, item descriptions and quantities sold. But supplying such personal data about customers intrudes upon the privacy and First Amendment rights of the customer, and unconstitutionally deprives remote sellers of their property right in the data set without due process of law. Of equal concern, some sellers question whether DRS is appropriately limited in its ability to disclose or share the customer data it seeks.
"Once you know, you don't Newegg."
