State Lines

[ZachS]

You know your supposed to use the button to turn your alarm clock off, not the .45 right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPFT98dprDQ
Fastforward to 1:15. I bet you go to bed like this too.

I certainly don't use a pellet gun to shoot out my light bulbs, if that's what you're implying....

 

[deen_ad]

It's not my job to collect taxes..

Again, I have never been charged taxes. Maybe that's included in the transfer fee. Sue me

ended up having to pay the state his back taxes over just this. He, as the FFL was responsible for collecting the sales/use tax and paying it to the state. He didn't collect a bunch and ended up having to pay it himself. He didn't think he had to pay them either, but the state proved otherwise. Mike did ask him customers to help him out and pay the taxes but not all did so he was out that money.
So, in actuality the dealer is, when audited, going to have to pay the back taxes and fine.

 

[bcp]

If the seller is out of state then there is no state sales tax collected. it's no different than any other out of state purchase

You owe tax on those purchases, too. The seller just didn't charge you for it.

You owe a WA tax on anything you purchase, anywhere, unless it stays out of state. Even a FTF gun sale, or buying a mower at your neighbor's yard sale.

http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/UseTax/

When is use tax due?

Use tax is due if:

* Goods are purchased in another state that does not have a sales tax or a state with a sales tax lower than Washington's. For example, items you purchase in Oregon that are used in Washington are subject to use tax.

* Goods are purchased from someone who is not authorized to collect sales tax. For example, purchases of furniture from an individual through a newspaper classified ad or a purchase of artwork from an individual collector.

* Goods are purchased out of state by subscription, through the Internet, or from a mail order catalog company. Many of these companies collect Washington's sales tax, but if the company from which you order does not, you owe the use tax.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

It's unenforceable and you know it.. unless as stated it's a FFL and he gets audited. No one in their right mind pays taxes on the items they order from out of state..

I don't sit up at night trying to figure out if I am obeying every obscure law, because I know the way the system is set up, we are all breaking some law

 

[Redcap]

You owe tax on those purchases, too. The seller just didn't charge you for it.

You owe a WA tax on anything you purchase, anywhere, unless it stays out of state. Even a FTF gun sale, or buying a mower at your neighbor's yard sale.

http://dor.wa.gov/content/FindTaxesAndRates/UseTax/

When is use tax due?

Use tax is due if:

* Goods are purchased in another state that does not have a sales tax or a state with a sales tax lower than Washington’s. For example, items you purchase in Oregon that are used in Washington are subject to use tax.

* Goods are purchased from someone who is not authorized to collect sales tax. For example, purchases of furniture from an individual through a newspaper classified ad or a purchase of artwork from an individual collector.

* Goods are purchased out of state by subscription, through the Internet, or from a mail order catalog company. Many of these companies collect Washington’s sales tax, but if the company from which you order does not, you owe the use tax.

"Use" tax is a joke.

 

[NK777]

Damn glad Oregon doesn't have a sales tax. The rules on that stuff is rediculous.

 

[TAT2D]

Damn glad Oregon doesn't have a sales tax. The rules on that stuff is rediculous.

I'd entertain a motion to switch to a sales tax if it was tied to eliminating the income tax. Seems like it'd be an incentive to save and also capture a fraction of the 'underground economy' that's currently missed (E.g. drug dealers don't pay income taxes, but still buy Twinkies.) It would mean giving up the bene of deducting state taxes on the federal return, and federal taxes on the state return...

Either system is subject to abuse; if we roto-tilled the current income tax scheme and 'started fresh,' we might have an understandable system for at least a couple years before it got all lobbied-up again.

What kills me is my friends that have spent their working careers paying OR income tax, only to retire to WA so they can pay sales tax as they spend their retirement savings. If I had it to do over again, I'd think about working it the other direction -- live in WA while living 'well beneath my means' then move to OR upon retirement and the big income swing.

MrB

 

[phathom]

Seems like it'd be an incentive to save and also capture a fraction of the 'underground economy' that's currently missed (E.g. drug dealers don't pay income taxes, but still buy Twinkies.)

And we all know how much they love their twinkies and "Ho Hos"

 

[tionico]

you do a transfer according to the law the FFL in WA is REQUIRED to charge sales/use tax on the value of the gun, the shipping and the FFL transfer fee.

absolutelyh NOT true.. I have seen a definitive Department of Revenue ruling on this. Since the gun is never entered into the inventory of the dealer, and he paid nothing for it, there is no "sales tax" due, as he did not "sell" the gun to the new owner. Nor did he pay shipping/handling. His fee for the transfer is a "professional service", since it does not materially change the gun, but merely handles it. "Professional service" is not taxable.

If you are dealing with an FFL who charges taxes as you outline, you need to find another one, as he is ripping you... either wilfully (by charging you the tax and not sending it the state, as it is not due) or in ignorance. Either way, find another one. This is wrong.... according to the Department of Revenue.

 

[tionico]

You can not transfer ownership of a gun from/to another non-licensed person if either of you are out of your state of residence. Not even if you are both from the same state, like two WA residents at an OR gun show.

Bruce

FTF transfers across state lines, or in another state than the one in which both reside (two WA residents at an OR gunshow..oh, wait ALL gunshow sales in OR must go through FFL now.... ) are prohibited. Handguns, and long guns.

WA residents may purchase long guns only NOT handguns) from an Oregon FFL, and I also believe OR residents may purchase long guns only from WA FFL.

Face to face across state lines.... illegal, Its all in the federal BATF rules... CFR 18....

 

[tionico]

To the OP... you can ship the gun to yourself, in care of your Dad's address. You have sent it to yourself across state lines (or you can bring it down there and leave it with him) which is legal.

"loan" the gun to your Dad..... it can still be yours, but you can give him permission to use it at will. Put it in your will that it becomes his on your demise.

all legal..... nothing to fear..... you retain ownership until death, when your will is read, and Pop "gets his gun" legally and above board. Meanwhile, you are storing it at his house, in case you want to use it when you are visiting.... and are such a king and generous soul you have given him permission to use it when he wants to.......

but, as long as you are yet breathing, it remains yours. Just like the guns already at his home, which remain yours. You probably have enough at YOUR house you won't miss any of them at his......

 

[tionico]

is not "selling" you anything, he is collecting the USE tax on the weapon, which you owe no matter where it's purchased. They also are required to charge sales tax on the shipping.

If the Internet seller has a nexus in WA they ARE required to collect sales/use tax on the goods, including shipping. Some years of running our own WA based business gives me some knowledge of the laws.

Look it up yourself, here's the link again: <broken link removed> .

You might not agree with the law, but it IS the law.

you are correct, in that, strictly speaking, USE tax is due the state when out of state goods are brought in.... but it is not up to the FFL Transfer dealer to collect that. He can ONLY collect SALES tax, on goods sold from HIS inventory. He has no way to collect, and then pay to the state, USE tax from another buyer's out of state purchase. We each, as the buyers, are responsible to, on our honour, pay to the state the USE tax on the selling price of the merchandise. Part of why this is so is that the FFL would also have to pay B&O tax on an item on which he did not pay or make a penny..... no, he can only legally charge SALES tax on items from HIS OWN inventory.

You are also correct in that if an out of state seller has "nexus" in Washington (such as Cabelas) they WILL charge SALES TAX on the order, based on the buyer's Washington location. But, in this case, the seller is selling merchanside owned by him, and thus, since he has WA nexus, must charge sales tax just as if I'd bought the same thing from the Cabelas in Lacey.

BUT-- when I boy from Joe Schmoe in Totoville Kansas, HE does not have nexus here, and so cannot charge me sales tax.... nor can the FFL dealer, as he did not sell me anything.

 

[bcp]

absolutelyh NOT true.. I have seen a definitive Department of Revenue ruling on this.

Isn't this it?

From:
<broken link removed>

"In an interstate transfer of firearms the Washington gun dealer is required to collect retail sales tax from the Washington resident on the purchase price of the firearm. The retail sales tax is collected from the Washington customer at the time the customer takes possession of the firearm. Sales tax is collected on the total selling price, including freight and/or delivery charges and other amounts added, such a an amount for insurance coverage."

 

[tionico]

Isn't this it?

From:
<broken link removed>

"In an interstate transfer of firearms the Washington gun dealer is required to collect retail sales tax from the Washington resident on the purchase price of the firearm. The retail sales tax is collected from the Washington customer at the time the customer takes possession of the firearm. Sales tax is collected on the total selling price, including freight and/or delivery charges and other amounts added, such a an amount for insurance coverage."

Interesting... this is directly opposite the ruling I read... I remember seeing it in another thread about interstate transfers and FFL dealers.... maybe three or four months back.
Still some FFL Dealers charge the tax, others do not.

Regardless of whether the FFL charges the tax, it is the obligation of the purchaser to report the purchase to the state and pay USE tax on it.. same rate, but a different class of tax. Strictly speaking, SALES tax is not due, as the item was never in the inventory of the FFL dealer. He has not made a sale, not even a consignment sale. He is merely being hired to perform a professional service... do the FBI background check, process the paperwork, and deliver the arms to the new owner. The "sale" took place when I sent the money directly to the seller in Moose Look Me Gun Tick, Maine...... the FFL had nothing to do with that sale.

While this seems to be "settled law" (though I can see some logic holes in it) I can imagine a skillfully mounted court challenge on the basis the transfer dealer never "owned" the weapon, nor did he have control over it, the transaction took place at a remote locataion, nothing to do with him or his business.

Maybe I can try and find the earlier posting I recall.... it was clearcut, and supports the statement above that, since it was never in the inventory of the dealer, no SALES tax would be due.

Sooner or later, this will have a shaking out...... no question the position this money'grubbing state gubmint will take. Whether the courts will see it that way is another matter..... some will, being stooges, others may take a different tack and rule against the state being so greedy..... I suppose it will depend on whether the judges in question will be appointed or elected... and how secure their position is.

 

[wired]

Never heard of it. Never paid it. No one I know ever has. Ive bought and sold more guns than I can possibly remember over the years and the most Ive ever paid at transfer is $25.

 

[tionico]

Never heard of it. Never paid it. No one I know ever has. Ive bought and sold more guns than I can possibly remember over the years and the most Ive ever paid at transfer is $25.

my experience as well.

BUT.. a dire prediction:

seein's how we're under the iron thumb of our present insatiable queen, and with this bit of legislation plainly on the books, look for some astute brown-noser in our venerable and driven Department of Robbingyou
to catch on to this travesty of negligence and do a door to dooor search of every arms dealer in the state....... assess all the taxes they can find, and break a few of them (thus performing the additional "service" of removing a few more gun dealers from our state, thus "protecting" our citizens from that danger)

Funny thing is, I've never seen the selling price of anything I've had transferred in written on my invoice from my FFL for HIS fee for the paperwork. So, they'll trot out their books and assess the tax at "retail value", not knowing a thing of its condition....... and we all know NO ONE ever buys a gun through an online auction unless its a screaming bargain, far below retail price........

My guess is we'll see this situation "corrected" within the next two years.... at least before our queen is de-elected next go round. Last I heard she's got about a 30% approval rating... pretty low for a sitting governess. If this was one of the provinces of Canada, there would be a vote of no confidence and she'd get the old bum's rush out the back door.....

 

[motortoyshop]

Perhaps a long term loan with "deposit".......ie price of gun. Undetermined loan period, with forfieture of "deposit" if gun not returned. Legal I believe if the contract is written that way.

 

[deen_ad]

absolutelyh NOT true.. I have seen a definitive Department of Revenue ruling on this. Since the gun is never entered into the inventory of the dealer, and he paid nothing for it, there is no "sales tax" due, as he did not "sell" the gun to the new owner. Nor did he pay shipping/handling. His fee for the transfer is a "professional service", since it does not materially change the gun, but merely handles it. "Professional service" is not taxable.

If you are dealing with an FFL who charges taxes as you outline, you need to find another one, as he is ripping you... either wilfully (by charging you the tax and not sending it the state, as it is not due) or in ignorance. Either way, find another one. This is wrong.... according to the Department of Revenue.

cite to the "definitive ruling" as the DOR IS going around and "reminding FFL's that they MUST charge sales tax on the guns value.
What you are claiming is NOT what the dealers are telling, nor what they are doing nor what the DOR site shows, nor what is published in the WAC (Washington Arms Collectors) newsletter.

 

[Buddymack]

Put a negative value on the firearm and send Washington state the bill ...send to Attn Christine Gregoire please pay the said amount or the state of Washington will be held in arrears, you have been given notice by the people this day, if the bill is not paid within 60 days the dept. of the people will hold the State responsible...
I mean math is math ...we should shove it right back at them!!
what is the law when the law breaks the law? see the 2nd Amendment! that is the law!
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!

 

[motortoyshop]

I am reading the law for what it clearly says.......and if I do have an actual document with the agreement clearly spelled out it is of course a legal contract. I can clearly either rent OR borrow a rifle from someone without timeframe needing to be specified. Obviously they did not fashion the law to allow this, NOR did they construct the language to prohibit 99 year rental/ lease agreements either. I guess a good lawyer could write up a contract that would allow for either situation. The legal hoops that they require are just that, and indeed nothing more than a creation of some bureaucrat that needed to justify his job existence.......I do understand what you are saying, but I believe that a valid contract for rent or a collateralized loan should be valid, and NOT constitute a "transfer", but a temporary though unspecified change of possesion as dictated by contract.