Does your WA FFL charge sales tax on a transfer??

[TOVO]

I have recently had it both ways. With tax and without. Either way sales is not much on a transfer.

 

[torpedoman]

call the attorney general and ask i'm sure he will know but i think you are being HOSED.

After further research and asking a few ffl's wash law wants them to collect tax on the purchase price no matter were you bought it because it is being delivered in this state. That'll teach you to elect democrats!

 

[8ball]

I was talking to an FFL about this the other day.

I'm surprised Olympia didn't think of it earlier. You owe use tax on anything you buy out of state, but it's typically impossible to collect. Firearm transfers are so highly regulated it makes it very easy for the Dept of Revenue to enforce these rules.

I guess Olympia thinks we should just be happy we don't have a state income tax yet.

 

[Redcap]

I was talking to an FFL about this the other day.

I'm surprised Olympia didn't think of it earlier. You owe use tax on anything you buy out of state, but it's typically impossible to collect. Firearm transfers are so highly regulated it makes it very easy for the Dept of Revenue to enforce these rules.

I guess Olympia thinks we should just be happy we don't have a state income tax yet.

Well, Olympia gets a big ol' set of middle fingers from me for trying to involve themselves and tax my 'use' of something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with them, aside from sheer greed.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I was talking to an FFL about this the other day.

I'm surprised Olympia didn't think of it earlier. You owe use tax on anything you buy out of state, but it's typically impossible to collect. Firearm transfers are so highly regulated it makes it very easy for the Dept of Revenue to enforce these rules.

I guess Olympia thinks we should just be happy we don't have a state income tax yet.

There's one on the ballot this time.. better get all your family and friends out to vote it down, because once the camel has it's nose in the tent, the game is finished

 

[TCOV]

There is a letter out for FFL's from the dept of revenue stating that they are to collect sales tax on the purchase price of any firearm they transfer and the expectations of what that price is. Not all dealers are collecting it as some disagree with the rule. An audit by the dept. of revenue may be a problem for them. If you know dealers that are not collecting the sales tax DO NOT NAME THEM as you could get them in trouble. This is BS but the dept. of revenue sets the rules until a challenge in court is won or lost.

 

[atakawow]

This BS sales tax on FFL transfers turn great online deals into overpriced gun show deals. Shipping fees + FFL fees + sales tax fees = WTF!?!?

 

[tionico]

Why would it be any different than any other thing you order over the internet? Some states have an agreement to cooperatively charge taxes with each other, thanks to the grinch who stole Washington.

trust me, Washington State's reigning queen has been maneouvreing since she attained the throne to equalise sales tax collection nationwide.. .. she has signed up our state to a coalition of states bucking for federal laws to require the collection of sales tax from origin on all transactions nationwide, based upon the tax rate at destination. California is one of the leading states in thsi move, I can't recall the others.


Of course, it is almost unnecessary to point out that the states fomenting for this change at the federal level are the very states who have the highest tax rates, and who have faithfully adopted policies having the effect of running business OUT of their own states..... thus reducing their revenue by losing the businesses as they relocate out of state. Queen Christine hasn't quite got the mental acuity to realise that, if this state were to change their antagonistic policies toward businesses here, this all would cease to be an issue.... instead, she goes about looking for new ways to get money out of we the people, and spend it on whatever suits her. She doesn't realise that, by encouraging businesses (by getting out of our way and letting us function unburdened) our businesses would prosper and, at a far lower tax rate, the state would have all it needs to function and then some.

 

[alfack]

I hear you. She can't figure out what any business owner knows. You can catch more tax dollars with lower rates. It is very basic economics.

 

[willamette valleyfirearms]

if the state requires tax on purchases it does not matter if its service or goods all must be taxed as the vendor will have to pay these at the end of the year.

 

[tionico]

Originally Posted by Blitzkrieg View Post
How can they collect sales tax on an item they did not sell to us?
Because its the LAW

<broken link removed>

this is new law, just voted in my our nannies up on the hill... they've got their mouths poked out cause tax revenues have been falling (duh... make it tough to do business in this state, business slows down, moves away, they don't get the revenue.... should have learned about that in their gobbermunt skules). So, they've been looking for "new sources" to dip.

It would be a good exercise to find out who voted FOR this, and return the favour come November.

So, yes, starting soon, this WILL be the law in Washington. So far, it has not been.

Now... SALES tax is to be collected by a business on transactions of their goods sold, and certain services performed (where something tangible is changed by their labour), things out of their own inventory which they sell at retail. Fine....

USE tax is "due" whenever anyone takes delivery of any tangible goods by any means, when SALES tax is not collected at time of sale. I buy a camera lens in Oregon, buy a blender on eBay, buy a used tire at a garage sale, an engine off Craigslist.... USE tax is then due and payable to the state. Yes, it stinks, yes, it is the law. Even if I buy a gun from a private party, USE tax is due. (how often it gets paid is a separate issue.....not where I'm going with this).

NOW-- since the FFL dealer never had MY gun, bought off GunBroker, in HIS inventory, SALES tax cannot be due. HE has not sold me the gun out of HIS stock of merchandise. BUT-- USE tax IS due, which I pay directly to the state. NOT to the transfer dealer.

SO-- this new law is illegal.... its a matter of time before someone mounts a court challenge to it. IF the court is fair and equitable, does not legislate from the bench, and is not a "yes man" to the state, it WILL fall. Plain and simple, a Washington business cannot charge SALES tax (which is what they are calling it) on merchandise it never had in inventory. The new law tells them to list the item under "consignment sales" on their tax return.... also bogus. The seller of the firearm never sent it to them to SELL, it has already been sold, I now OWN it before the FFL ever sees it. So, telling them to put it as "consgnment goods" is also not legal. Now, if George in Nevada sends a pistol to Charlie the FFL in Washington to sell on his behalf, THEN it is a consignment piece, and IF it is sold to a Washington resident, then SALES tax is due.... because it was sent to the FFL to be put into his inventory to sell.


See what happens when we vote in the kind of folks who think it proper to take whatever money then can get their grubs on, and spend it on the sorts of foolish and socially irresponsible things the Olympia lot have been spending it on?

Time to do some housecleaning, get in some folks who will begin managing our state finances as though it were a family with a limited income. Sure, $60,000 SUVs for the State Patrol are nice..... but can we afford them? A Crown Vic costs a third of that....

some FFL dealers will get audited, and stung..... which is sad, It will likely break some of them. Part of what they want. Fewer dealers equals fewer places to get guns, equals fewer guns.. so their "new maths" figures it.

 

[zeppelin]

I had an FFL in WA state for a number of years back in the 80s and 90s. After I had it a couple of years and had bought, sold, and transferred a number of items I got a letter from the state. Basically it said if you are going to sell guns in this state you need to have a state business license and you need to collect taxes on any sales and transfers you make. Even if I bought one for my own use, I had to pay what is called the use tax. Use tax is the same as sales tax and it says if you buy something from out of state, the first time you use it you have to pay the sales tax on it (not many folks are aware of this, but its the law and has been for some time). Fortunately I'd only sold and collected 10 or 15 firearms by that time and the tax due wasn't that much. Between the taxes and the state business license (yes there is an annual fee) and Clinton Administration's BATFE cracking down on inspections and having more onerous FFL renewal requirements, I got out of the business. Say what you want, this is the voice of personal experience. I'd have to look, but I may even still have the letter.

 

[Oro]

NOW-- since the FFL dealer never had MY gun, bought off GunBroker, in HIS inventory, SALES tax cannot be due. HE has not sold me the gun out of HIS stock of merchandise. BUT-- USE tax IS due, which I pay directly to the state. NOT to the transfer dealer.

I think this is the most relevant part. Having read through the relevant RCW, there's no requirement that a federally licensed agent perform revenue collection for the state.

The FFL is performing a service that is federally prescribed, and not at the state level. The FFL may hold a state business license and be responsible for reporting to the state, but these are only reporting requirements. The law is pretty clear that the issue of the tax is beween the seller and buyer.

It's a very big stretch to make the FFL responsible for the tax, and there doesn't appear to be any law to back it up that I can find.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=82.12.020

 

[zeppelin]

tionico I guess you didn't see the following previously posted link

<broken link removed>

 

[8ball]

trust me, Washington State's reigning queen has been maneouvreing since she attained the throne to equalise sales tax collection nationwide.. .. she has signed up our state to a coalition of states bucking for federal laws to require the collection of sales tax from origin on all transactions nationwide, based upon the tax rate at destination. California is one of the leading states in thsi move, I can't recall the others.

It's called SSTP - Streamlined Sales Tax Project - and twenty states have signed up for it, including WA. California is not involved. See http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org for the list.

Although I'm no fan of paying taxes, if they are going to rationalize sales taxes versus use taxes then SSTP is probably a good thing. Neither consumers nor businesses need to know that the tax rate in Arkansas on boots is 5% lower if the boot has a one inch heel, or other strange tax laws like that. As everyone has pointed out, the WA use tax applies regardless and has done since at least 1975.

Local retailers like SSTP type laws because it reduces the advantage of online stores and mail order catalogs. Amazon is pushing back against individual state tax laws as well, saying that states need to sign SSTP because otherwise it would be too hard to administer local tax rates. And obviously states like Oregon don't want or need SSTP since they replaced state sales taxes with a personal income tax.

 

[Weathermaker]

A shady businessman that needs to be turned in I'd say. May even just be a rogue employee.

I remember a deal with Alamo car rentals at SeaTac a number of years ago. We rented a mini van for a weekend so we could take all 5 kids (combined family) to Oregon for thanksgiving in one car. It was $305 flat rate. When we went to turn in the van I was hit with a $300 charge making the total $605.

I told them that I'd have to wash dishes to pay for it! They told me they didn't have any to wash so I told them they were out of luck.

They came up with a receipt for $605 with my signature on it. The extra fee was listed as a finders fee. Then I pointed out that the receipt had a photocopy of my signature which was in no way legally binding. I was informed that the police would be called if I refused to pay in full.

I invited the cashier to use my cell to call 911 and she declined. Then I loudly recommended that all other rental car customers go to a different company for their rental. I walked away after paying my $305.

By the time we turned the corner going out of sight the line at Alamo had disappeared. The following morning I emailed the attorney general's office and copied Alamo corporate and KOMO4 news (email is powerful).

Two weeks later I received an email from the Alamo corporate office with some coupons I never did use. The employee had been charging many customers with this fee and had been terminated by Alamo. They had created a seperate account with VISA under a fictitious business name and were only charging customer's cards for the finders fee. No records of these transactions were on file at Alamo of course but some evidence was found in the persons home by police.

According to Alamo this had gone on for at least three years. I can only hope they were prosecuted but I never did hear anything else. If there is one thing I don't tolerate well it's being ripped off.

NOW THIS IS INTERESTING. THANKS FOR POSTING IT.

 

[deen_ad]

tionico I guess you didn't see the following previously posted link

<broken link removed>

the page this links to carries a 2007 copyright data, so it's nothing new as has been said before.

As to not finding a law that supports it: there may not be one, it may just be their interpretation of the law, but you're free to take it to court and get it clarified!


Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
ACSWW member

 

[wence5]

I don't mean to get off track here,and I think I should probably post this over on the political forum, but it seems to me that the state of Washington is so strapped for cash they will squeeze and wring every last dime out of you if they can because of their reckless spending.
I'm starting to think if I need to make a major purchase, other than a car cause the DMV will ding me anyway, to spend the extra time and just go over to Oregon and the state can go pack sand!

 

[Belial]

The use tax law is nothing new for FFL's in this state. If you read the laws pretaining to running a business leagally in the state its there and has been there for years. The state has recently cleaned up the language so they can now come after FFL dealers for the amount of "Use" tax that they were not collecting for them before. Call it robbery, call it unfair, call your dealer a theif, call me anything you want. Its in black and white and I will be the first to tell you since the language has been cleaned up my accountant tells me I can be held liable so you can either pay or go elsewhere. When it wasn't clear in the language I left the tax up to the buyer AS IT SHOULD BE after legal advise through an accountant. Its not worth the liability for me period. Fact of the matter its not worth doing transfers with all the extra book keeping you get to do for free for the queen. I think the whole use tax thing is bs period but whats a guy to do?

Now that fact that the dealer didn't disclose that info is pretty crappy imho, but then again did you ask specifically weather or not they collected "Use" tax on the purchase amount???

 

[rodell]

From my post on the topic a few days ago:

The relevant statute, RCW 82.12.040:

(1) Every person who maintains in this state a place of business or a stock of goods, or engages in business activities within this state, shall obtain from the department a certificate of registration, and shall, at the time of making sales of tangible personal property, digital goods, digital codes, digital automated services, extended warranties, or sales of any service defined as a retail sale in RCW 82.04.050 (2) (a) or (g), (3)(a), or (6)(b), or making transfers of either possession or title, or both, of tangible personal property for use in this state, collect from the purchasers or transferees the tax imposed under this chapter. The tax to be collected under this section must be in an amount equal to the purchase price multiplied by the rate in effect for the retail sales tax under RCW 82.08.020. For the purposes of this chapter, the phrase "maintains in this state a place of business" shall include the solicitation of sales and/or taking of orders by sales agents or traveling representatives. For the purposes of this chapter, "engages in business activity within this state" includes every activity which is sufficient under the Constitution of the United States for this state to require collection of tax under this chapter. The department must in rules specify activities which constitute engaging in business activity within this state, and must keep the rules current with future court interpretations of the Constitution of the United States.