Is FFL required to collect sales tax on out of state purchase?

Some do and some dont, depends on the state laws

cjwils said:

https://www.nmsd.wednet.edu/userfiles/-12/My Files/Business Forms/Accounts Payable & Purchasing/Use Tax Guidelines.pdf?id=901

Washington state use tax is supposed to be paid on any purchase that a Washington resident makes anywhere, when that item enters the state, unless full Washington sales tax has been paid. Most people never pay on most items, but with guns they have you over a barrel, because you cannot avoid the state paperwork at the time of transfer.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

I knew WA was going to come up as an example because it's one of only a few states that has a very regressive tax structure. The state can't collect a lot of revenue because it has no provision for an income tax. They have to resort to so called "use tax" to have a prayer of collecting enough taxes. With internet sales being what they are they have to rely on dealers, and it isn't just FFL's, to collect that tax. There used to be brisk sales here of used firearms without FFL transfers. Now with the UBC they collect a lot more tax and the FFL, by law, is the tax collector. If an FFL wants to keep doing business in this state they better collect the tax.

WA implemented the licensing of all water craft years ago, another "use tax", as a means to collect tax. To date they haven't been able to find a way to enforce a use tax on used farm equipment like tractors but believe they have tried. They also keep introducing legislation for a state income tax but it never goes anywhere.

I don't mind the use tax. If I don't want to pay it I just don't use (purchase) the item.

CoalTrain49 said:

Exactly.

I knew WA was going to come up as an example because it's one of only a few states that has a very regressive tax structure. The state can't collect a lot of revenue because it has no provision for an income tax. They have to resort to so called "use tax" to have a prayer of collecting enough taxes. With internet sales being what they are they have to rely on dealers, and it isn't just FFL's, to collect that tax. There used to be brisk sales here of used firearms without FFL transfers. Now with the UBC they collect a lot more tax and the FFL, by law, is the tax collector. If an FFL wants to keep doing business in this state they better collect the tax.

WA implemented the licensing of all water craft years ago, another "use tax", as a means to collect tax. To date they haven't been able to find a way to enforce a use tax on used farm equipment like tractors but believe they have tried. They also keep introducing legislation for a state income tax but it never goes anywhere.

I don't mind the use tax. If I don't want to pay it I just don't use (purchase) the item.

Click to expand...

Washington doesn't have a tax problem, they have a spending problem.

Texas10mm said:

Washington doesn't have a tax problem, they have a spending problem.

Click to expand...

They don't have any hooks in me. Well, maybe a few, but they don't hurt much.

Nothing is absolute, and there is always an exception to the rule. Why some like to talk about an anomaly is beyond me.

If you buy a gun from an Ohio LGS or have one transferred here to an FFL from another state to buy, you will not be charged any tax. Can't speak for Cabelas, as I would never pay their prices. I can live w/ my answer.

As I see it, the biggest fiction is that the "point of sale" can be anywhere other than at the "point of transfer". A sale cannot have occurred until the seller has his compensation and the buyer his product. Until that happens, there is nothing more than a contract for sale; a contract that can be legally enforced if the seller doesn't deliver. In support of this theory, I offer this: the tax due is based upon where the product is to be delivered, not on where the buyer resides, therefore it MUST be the delivery that completes the sale. That the transfer of a firearm across State lines requires the involvement of an FFL doesn't change that. And the idea that State's cannot designate whomever they so choose to collect the tax is silly. Generally, Statutes give the bureaucrats that administer them, and Rules that grow out of them, broad authority to address nuances that aren't directly addressed in the Statute. They call 'em Policies, and are in force until successfully challenged. Making the FFL the collector if the seller isn't required to is just pure pragmatism on the State's part: the buyer is ultimately responsible, but we all know how that works. Fire away.

Ks5shooter said:

You buy a gun on line. Seller of the gun does not collect sales tax. Is your ffl required to collect the sales tax? Was curious. Thanks in advance for any info.

Click to expand...

I think it depend on your state. It used to be, the buyer (you) were responsible for paying sales tax on things you bought online. Obviously, almost no one ever did this so some states now require online retailers to collect sales tax (I think Amazon started charging me state sales tax a year or two ago). I don't think the FFL would be responsible for collecting tax, but IANAL so what to I know!