- Status
According to the Supreme Court a seller can not charge a sales tax on items shipped to a buyer in another state if that seller has no presence in the buyer’s state. So, if I purchased an item from Sears, Sears would add sales tax from that state, because Sears has a store in Nevada, but if there is no Sears store in that state, no sales tax. As for the FFL holder, he is preforming a service, and there is no sales tax on services in Nevada.
That is incorrect, sales tax is required to be paid. Please see here: Charging tax on FFL dealer transfers
Same at our store.....
Until the tax man knocks on my door or lets me know in writing that we have to charge tax on something that was bought out of state, we won't be charging any tax on ransfers.
Why you guys are out looking to pay more taxes and stirring this **** up is beyond me! :beatdeadhorse5:
Until the tax man knocks on my door or lets me know in writing that we have to charge tax on something that was bought out of state, we won't be charging any tax on ransfers.
Why you guys are out looking to pay more taxes and stirring this **** up is beyond me! :beatdeadhorse5:
I think there is a colorable argument that an FFL, performing a 4473 transfer, is not conducting a "sale" pursuant to NRS 372.060. The FFL is acting as an intermediary in the transaction. The "performing a service" argument has at least some weight.
Additionally, title passed to the buyer when the firearm arrived at the FFL's store (UCC Section 2-401(2)(a) - seller not required to deliver goods at destination; the FFL does that).
Even the inconsistent response and enforcement from the Dept. of Taxation would indicate that this is a gray area at best. I have no doubt that as the state gets more and more starved for tax revenue, we will see odd enforcement policies, but some push-back should occur on this one. If I were audited, I wouldn't hand it over without a fight.
Just my two cents.
Additionally, title passed to the buyer when the firearm arrived at the FFL's store (UCC Section 2-401(2)(a) - seller not required to deliver goods at destination; the FFL does that).
Even the inconsistent response and enforcement from the Dept. of Taxation would indicate that this is a gray area at best. I have no doubt that as the state gets more and more starved for tax revenue, we will see odd enforcement policies, but some push-back should occur on this one. If I were audited, I wouldn't hand it over without a fight.
Just my two cents.
Actually, I just re-read that whole thread and there is nothing in it that shows a FFL is to collect sales tax on a transfer. I did see a lot of misinterpretation of the statues to try to justify collection of sales tax.
There is nothing in that thread as tech for sales tax collection. On the contrary, there is far more evidence that no sales tax is to be collected.
The FFL did not sell anything. The FFL is not compelled by the state to try to collect taxes on something he did not sell. The FFL provides a service of transferring a title. He is not a salesperson for the seller.
The buyer is the one obligated to pay a use tax for something bought out of state where there was no sales tax was collected.
If buying from an out of state business that has a location in Nevada, the sales tax will be collected at the source and sent to Nevada.
There is nothing in that thread as tech for sales tax collection. On the contrary, there is far more evidence that no sales tax is to be collected.
The FFL did not sell anything. The FFL is not compelled by the state to try to collect taxes on something he did not sell. The FFL provides a service of transferring a title. He is not a salesperson for the seller.
The buyer is the one obligated to pay a use tax for something bought out of state where there was no sales tax was collected.
If buying from an out of state business that has a location in Nevada, the sales tax will be collected at the source and sent to Nevada.
That would all be true on purchases that ship directly into your hands. Look up the definition of property transfer so you can better understand how out of state FFL transfers use a Nevada dealers as an intermediary. Then look up sales tax, and you'll realize that it's always required to be paid on commercial property transfers.
But since you read that thread already, so you should know that the Nevada Department of Taxation has said sales tax is to be collected on these transfers. You must have also read how some dealers have been specifically told by the department to collect sales tax. You've surely read how the larger dealers (Cabelas and Scheels for example) are already collecting sales tax.
I'm not trying to make it so that people are paying sales tax on their FFL transfers, I'm just trying to point out that those dealers who are not charging tax are doing us a favor, and we should keep our business with them. I'm also trying to stop the rampant spread of false assumptions as fact.
But since you read that thread already, so you should know that the Nevada Department of Taxation has said sales tax is to be collected on these transfers. You must have also read how some dealers have been specifically told by the department to collect sales tax. You've surely read how the larger dealers (Cabelas and Scheels for example) are already collecting sales tax.
I'm not trying to make it so that people are paying sales tax on their FFL transfers, I'm just trying to point out that those dealers who are not charging tax are doing us a favor, and we should keep our business with them. I'm also trying to stop the rampant spread of false assumptions as fact.
Guys we have already had this discussion elsewhere on this board.
http://www.nevadashooters.com/showthread.php?t=16877
Go beat that horse to death some more if you feel the need........
http://www.nevadashooters.com/showthread.php?t=16877
Go beat that horse to death some more if you feel the need........
Last edited:
- Status