1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

New every Two ripoff

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by SL, Mar 20, 2004.

  1. Andrew White

    Andrew White Guest

    "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    >news:f2j7c.31865$%06.30131@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >|
    >| "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    >| news:fZWdnaGf4eHUNcHdRVn-jg@lmi.net...
    >| > SL <shel99@noway.com> wrote:
    >| > > upgrade which would make the phone 0.00, except for the sales tax
    >| > > based on the 399.00 cost (another ripoff)
    >| >
    >| > I don't think so. You *always* have to pay tax based on the pre-rebate
    >| > price, and it doesn't matter what the item is. State taxation
    >departments
    >| > get pissy if merchants don't properly collect sales tax. :)
    >|
    >| The rip-off is not paying tax on the pre-rebate price, it's paying tax on
    >| the MSRP of the handset. No other product has this requirement (that I am
    >| aware of). Paying tax on a $400 on handset that you pay $100 for (and get
    >| $100 rebate on later), is a scam. It's as if they would charge you tax on
    >| the MSRP of a car that you paid $5000 under MSRP on.
    >
    >Don't blame Verizon for this practice......
    >
    >IF you won a 50,000 Mercedes in Vegas, you'd have to pay sales tax on the
    >full amount - it's that way for everything. Tax is irrelevant when compared
    >to what you paid under this "deal". You must pay the tax on MSRP even if
    >Verizon gave you the phone for free.....
    >
    >Write your Congresscritter - apologize to Verizon for whacking them
    >unfairly.....


    You've mixed together a whole bunch of unrelated things. First of all,
    if you win a car in Las Vegas, you will not be paying any sales tax.
    You will (1) pay Federal and State income tax (in most states) and (2)
    a tax EQUAL in the amount to the car sales tax when registering the
    car, but it's not sales tax.

    Second, US Congress has nothing to do with sales tax practices of
    States.
     



    › See More: New every Two ripoff
  2. Proconsul <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

    > Don't blame Verizon for this practice......
    >
    > IF you won a 50,000 Mercedes in Vegas, you'd have to pay sales tax on the
    > full amount - it's that way for everything. Tax is irrelevant when compared
    > to what you paid under this "deal". You must pay the tax on MSRP even if
    > Verizon gave you the phone for free.....


    If you win a 50,000-dollar car, you *also* have to tack the entire $50K onto
    your 1040. (I think. I know that's why the California and Ohio lotteries
    won't let you redeem instant tickets worth more than $599 - if they pay more
    than $599 to an individual in any given year they are required to report the
    payment to the IRS and that the winner must pay income tax on the amount
    won.)

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
     
  3. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:Q%L7c.36$_U.16@lakeread05...
    >
    > "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    > news:f2j7c.31865$%06.30131@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > |
    > | "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    > | news:fZWdnaGf4eHUNcHdRVn-jg@lmi.net...
    > | > SL <shel99@noway.com> wrote:
    > | > > upgrade which would make the phone 0.00, except for the sales tax
    > | > > based on the 399.00 cost (another ripoff)
    > | >
    > | > I don't think so. You *always* have to pay tax based on the pre-rebate
    > | > price, and it doesn't matter what the item is. State taxation
    > departments
    > | > get pissy if merchants don't properly collect sales tax. :)
    > |
    > | The rip-off is not paying tax on the pre-rebate price, it's paying tax

    on
    > | the MSRP of the handset. No other product has this requirement (that I

    am
    > | aware of). Paying tax on a $400 on handset that you pay $100 for (and

    get
    > | $100 rebate on later), is a scam. It's as if they would charge you tax

    on
    > | the MSRP of a car that you paid $5000 under MSRP on.
    >
    > Don't blame Verizon for this practice......
    >
    > IF you won a 50,000 Mercedes in Vegas, you'd have to pay sales tax on the
    > full amount - it's that way for everything. Tax is irrelevant when

    compared
    > to what you paid under this "deal". You must pay the tax on MSRP even if
    > Verizon gave you the phone for free.....
    >
    > Write your Congresscritter - apologize to Verizon for whacking them
    > unfairly.....
    >
    > PC
    >
    >


    That is so stupid and silly. If you buy something at a store on sale you pay
    tax on WHAT YOU PAY. I have absolutely positively never ever seen a sale
    where you have to pay tax on the item for MORE than it sells for.
     
  4. Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:

    > If you win a 50,000-dollar car, you *also* have to tack the entire $50K onto
    > your 1040. (I think. I know that's why the California and Ohio lotteries
    > won't let you redeem instant tickets worth more than $599 - if they pay more
    > than $599 to an individual in any given year they are required to report the
    > payment to the IRS and that the winner must pay income tax on the amount
    > won.)


    Actually, thinking about it, I'm not sure that "also" is the right word,
    although when you win prizes (in a casino, on a game show, in the state
    lottery, etc.) you and the entity giving you the prize have to report winnings
    of over $599 per year.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
     
  5. Proconsul

    Proconsul Guest

    "Andrew White" <nospamers@allowed.at.all.net> wrote in message
    news:tr4v50tpu6i9sur9u2k5aoiok1qiknl7ru@4ax.com...
    | "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    |
    || >"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    | >news:f2j7c.31865$%06.30131@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    | >|
    | >| "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    | >| news:fZWdnaGf4eHUNcHdRVn-jg@lmi.net...
    | >| > SL <shel99@noway.com> wrote:
    | >| > > upgrade which would make the phone 0.00, except for the sales tax
    | >| > > based on the 399.00 cost (another ripoff)
    | >| >
    | >| > I don't think so. You *always* have to pay tax based on the
    pre-rebate
    | >| > price, and it doesn't matter what the item is. State taxation
    | >departments
    | >| > get pissy if merchants don't properly collect sales tax. :)
    | >|
    | >| The rip-off is not paying tax on the pre-rebate price, it's paying tax
    on
    | >| the MSRP of the handset. No other product has this requirement (that I
    am
    | >| aware of). Paying tax on a $400 on handset that you pay $100 for (and
    get
    | >| $100 rebate on later), is a scam. It's as if they would charge you tax
    on
    | >| the MSRP of a car that you paid $5000 under MSRP on.
    | >
    | >Don't blame Verizon for this practice......
    | >
    | >IF you won a 50,000 Mercedes in Vegas, you'd have to pay sales tax on the
    | >full amount - it's that way for everything. Tax is irrelevant when
    compared
    | >to what you paid under this "deal". You must pay the tax on MSRP even if
    | >Verizon gave you the phone for free.....
    | >
    | >Write your Congresscritter - apologize to Verizon for whacking them
    | >unfairly.....
    |
    | You've mixed together a whole bunch of unrelated things. First of all,
    | if you win a car in Las Vegas, you will not be paying any sales tax.
    | You will (1) pay Federal and State income tax (in most states) and (2)
    | a tax EQUAL in the amount to the car sales tax when registering the
    | car, but it's not sales tax.

    Please - nit-picking isn't a good substitute for sound methods of
    discussion. The guiding principle remains that you MUST pay tax on a "free"
    phone or a "free" car.....it's not something to whack Verizon about. This
    forum is cluttered with childish and idiotic complaints about
    Verizon....this one was just too much!

    | Second, US Congress has nothing to do with sales tax practices of
    | States.

    No, but it has everything to do with the U.S. Tax Code. I should have
    included your State Representative. As you said yourself, these sorts of
    taxes can be Federal, State or a mix of the two - and the principle remains
    clear...it is NOT Verizon's fault if you have to pay tax on a phone you get
    on a "deal".

    Happy nit-picking.....:)

    PC
     
  6. Proconsul

    Proconsul Guest

    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:sNWdnS8WGdC7PcLdRVn-sA@lmi.net...
    | Proconsul <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    |
    | > Don't blame Verizon for this practice......
    | >
    | > IF you won a 50,000 Mercedes in Vegas, you'd have to pay sales tax on
    the
    | > full amount - it's that way for everything. Tax is irrelevant when
    compared
    | > to what you paid under this "deal". You must pay the tax on MSRP even if
    | > Verizon gave you the phone for free.....
    |
    | If you win a 50,000-dollar car, you *also* have to tack the entire $50K
    onto
    | your 1040. (I think. I know that's why the California and Ohio lotteries
    | won't let you redeem instant tickets worth more than $599 - if they pay
    more
    | than $599 to an individual in any given year they are required to report
    the
    | payment to the IRS and that the winner must pay income tax on the
    amount
    | won.)

    You are correct - but the principle remains intact, i.e., the taxes paid for
    a Verizon deal are NOT Verizon's fault.....

    PC
     
  7. Proconsul

    Proconsul Guest

    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:9YOdnXtf0tXKK8LdRVn-ig@lmi.net...
    | Steven J Sobol <sjsobol@justthe.net> wrote:
    |
    | > If you win a 50,000-dollar car, you *also* have to tack the entire $50K
    onto
    | > your 1040. (I think. I know that's why the California and Ohio lotteries
    | > won't let you redeem instant tickets worth more than $599 - if they pay
    more
    | > than $599 to an individual in any given year they are required to report
    the
    | > payment to the IRS and that the winner must pay income tax on the
    amount
    | > won.)
    |
    | Actually, thinking about it, I'm not sure that "also" is the right word,
    | although when you win prizes (in a casino, on a game show, in the state
    | lottery, etc.) you and the entity giving you the prize have to report
    winnings
    | of over $599 per year.

    Also correct......

    PC
     
  8. Proconsul

    Proconsul Guest

    "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:c3o8lo$29ude5$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    |
    | "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    | news:Q%L7c.36$_U.16@lakeread05...
    | >
    | > "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    | > news:f2j7c.31865$%06.30131@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    | > |
    | > | "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    | > | news:fZWdnaGf4eHUNcHdRVn-jg@lmi.net...
    | > | > SL <shel99@noway.com> wrote:
    | > | > > upgrade which would make the phone 0.00, except for the sales tax
    | > | > > based on the 399.00 cost (another ripoff)
    | > | >
    | > | > I don't think so. You *always* have to pay tax based on the
    pre-rebate
    | > | > price, and it doesn't matter what the item is. State taxation
    | > departments
    | > | > get pissy if merchants don't properly collect sales tax. :)
    | > |
    | > | The rip-off is not paying tax on the pre-rebate price, it's paying tax
    | on
    | > | the MSRP of the handset. No other product has this requirement (that I
    | am
    | > | aware of). Paying tax on a $400 on handset that you pay $100 for (and
    | get
    | > | $100 rebate on later), is a scam. It's as if they would charge you tax
    | on
    | > | the MSRP of a car that you paid $5000 under MSRP on.
    | >
    | > Don't blame Verizon for this practice......
    | >
    | > IF you won a 50,000 Mercedes in Vegas, you'd have to pay sales tax on
    the
    | > full amount - it's that way for everything. Tax is irrelevant when
    | compared
    | > to what you paid under this "deal". You must pay the tax on MSRP even if
    | > Verizon gave you the phone for free.....
    | >
    | > Write your Congresscritter - apologize to Verizon for whacking them
    | > unfairly.....
    | >
    | > PC
    | >
    | >
    |
    | That is so stupid and silly. If you buy something at a store on sale you
    pay
    | tax on WHAT YOU PAY. I have absolutely positively never ever seen a sale
    | where you have to pay tax on the item for MORE than it sells for.

    Be careful who/what you label silly and stupid - in this case, you are dead
    bang wrong.....:)

    What we were discussing has nothing whatsoever to do with a "sale" in a
    retail store. Rebates and other "reductions" are routinely taxed at the full
    amount in many venues....

    PC
     
  9. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:7RR7c.1881$_U.895@lakeread05...
    >
    > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:c3o8lo$29ude5$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    > |
    > | "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > | news:Q%L7c.36$_U.16@lakeread05...
    > | >
    > | > "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    > | > news:f2j7c.31865$%06.30131@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > | > |
    > | > | "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    > | > | news:fZWdnaGf4eHUNcHdRVn-jg@lmi.net...
    > | > | > SL <shel99@noway.com> wrote:
    > | > | > > upgrade which would make the phone 0.00, except for the sales

    tax
    > | > | > > based on the 399.00 cost (another ripoff)
    > | > | >
    > | > | > I don't think so. You *always* have to pay tax based on the
    > pre-rebate
    > | > | > price, and it doesn't matter what the item is. State taxation
    > | > departments
    > | > | > get pissy if merchants don't properly collect sales tax. :)
    > | > |
    > | > | The rip-off is not paying tax on the pre-rebate price, it's paying

    tax
    > | on
    > | > | the MSRP of the handset. No other product has this requirement (that

    I
    > | am
    > | > | aware of). Paying tax on a $400 on handset that you pay $100 for

    (and
    > | get
    > | > | $100 rebate on later), is a scam. It's as if they would charge you

    tax
    > | on
    > | > | the MSRP of a car that you paid $5000 under MSRP on.
    > | >
    > | > Don't blame Verizon for this practice......
    > | >
    > | > IF you won a 50,000 Mercedes in Vegas, you'd have to pay sales tax on
    > the
    > | > full amount - it's that way for everything. Tax is irrelevant when
    > | compared
    > | > to what you paid under this "deal". You must pay the tax on MSRP even

    if
    > | > Verizon gave you the phone for free.....
    > | >
    > | > Write your Congresscritter - apologize to Verizon for whacking them
    > | > unfairly.....
    > | >
    > | > PC
    > | >
    > | >
    > |
    > | That is so stupid and silly. If you buy something at a store on sale you
    > pay
    > | tax on WHAT YOU PAY. I have absolutely positively never ever seen a sale
    > | where you have to pay tax on the item for MORE than it sells for.
    >
    > Be careful who/what you label silly and stupid - in this case, you are

    dead
    > bang wrong.....:)
    >
    > What we were discussing has nothing whatsoever to do with a "sale" in a
    > retail store. Rebates and other "reductions" are routinely taxed at the

    full
    > amount in many venues....
    >
    > PC
    >
    >


    I suggest you go back and take an accounting class. You usually pay tax on
    the amount paid at the time of purchase. If the rebate is included in the
    retail price, you pay tax on the actual amount you pay, while there are
    rebates that you can send in after the fact and get money back, you pay tax
    on the full amount before rebate.

    All I can say, is that if you are stupid and foolish enough to actually pay
    MORE sales tax on an item you buy in a store on sale....

    In case you haven't noticed, verizon stores are a retail store, (hint, they
    are called retail outlets).

    While they do give deals on phones, if you get a 1 or 2 year contract, guess
    what, look at your bill, you are getting taxed every month for the life of
    the contract. So you pay sales tax up front on the full amount, and then you
    pay sales tax again every month.

    I think we should organize a codicil to the tea party, and sink freighters
    full of verizon phones in Boston harbor.

    What happens in states like Alaska and New Hampshire that don't have sales
    tax?
     
  10. Proconsul

    Proconsul Guest

    "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:c3ots5$2auk18$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    |
    | "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    | news:7RR7c.1881$_U.895@lakeread05...
    | >
    | > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    | > news:c3o8lo$29ude5$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    | > |
    | > | "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    | > | news:Q%L7c.36$_U.16@lakeread05...
    | > | >
    | > | > "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    | > | > news:f2j7c.31865$%06.30131@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    | > | > |
    | > | > | "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    | > | > | news:fZWdnaGf4eHUNcHdRVn-jg@lmi.net...
    | > | > | > SL <shel99@noway.com> wrote:
    | > | > | > > upgrade which would make the phone 0.00, except for the sales
    | tax
    | > | > | > > based on the 399.00 cost (another ripoff)
    | > | > | >
    | > | > | > I don't think so. You *always* have to pay tax based on the
    | > pre-rebate
    | > | > | > price, and it doesn't matter what the item is. State taxation
    | > | > departments
    | > | > | > get pissy if merchants don't properly collect sales tax. :)
    | > | > |
    | > | > | The rip-off is not paying tax on the pre-rebate price, it's paying
    | tax
    | > | on
    | > | > | the MSRP of the handset. No other product has this requirement
    (that
    | I
    | > | am
    | > | > | aware of). Paying tax on a $400 on handset that you pay $100 for
    | (and
    | > | get
    | > | > | $100 rebate on later), is a scam. It's as if they would charge you
    | tax
    | > | on
    | > | > | the MSRP of a car that you paid $5000 under MSRP on.
    | > | >
    | > | > Don't blame Verizon for this practice......
    | > | >
    | > | > IF you won a 50,000 Mercedes in Vegas, you'd have to pay sales tax
    on
    | > the
    | > | > full amount - it's that way for everything. Tax is irrelevant when
    | > | compared
    | > | > to what you paid under this "deal". You must pay the tax on MSRP
    even
    | if
    | > | > Verizon gave you the phone for free.....
    | > | >
    | > | > Write your Congresscritter - apologize to Verizon for whacking them
    | > | > unfairly.....
    | > | >
    | > | > PC
    | > | >
    | > | >
    | > |
    | > | That is so stupid and silly. If you buy something at a store on sale
    you
    | > pay
    | > | tax on WHAT YOU PAY. I have absolutely positively never ever seen a
    sale
    | > | where you have to pay tax on the item for MORE than it sells for.
    | >
    | > Be careful who/what you label silly and stupid - in this case, you are
    | dead
    | > bang wrong.....:)
    | >
    | > What we were discussing has nothing whatsoever to do with a "sale" in a
    | > retail store. Rebates and other "reductions" are routinely taxed at the
    | full
    | > amount in many venues....
    | >
    | > PC
    | >
    | >
    |
    | I suggest you go back and take an accounting class. You usually pay tax on
    | the amount paid at the time of purchase. If the rebate is included in the
    | retail price, you pay tax on the actual amount you pay, while there are
    | rebates that you can send in after the fact and get money back, you pay
    tax
    | on the full amount before rebate.
    |
    | All I can say, is that if you are stupid and foolish enough to actually
    pay
    | MORE sales tax on an item you buy in a store on sale....
    |
    | In case you haven't noticed, verizon stores are a retail store, (hint,
    they
    | are called retail outlets).
    |
    | While they do give deals on phones, if you get a 1 or 2 year contract,
    guess
    | what, look at your bill, you are getting taxed every month for the life of
    | the contract. So you pay sales tax up front on the full amount, and then
    you
    | pay sales tax again every month.
    |
    | I think we should organize a codicil to the tea party, and sink freighters
    | full of verizon phones in Boston harbor.
    |
    | What happens in states like Alaska and New Hampshire that don't have sales
    | tax?

    It appears that your wire and harness are too tight, Peter Pan....:) You
    might also consider having your lithium dosage adjusted...

    You just don't "get it". Taxes on MSRP are ROUTINELY charged and paid on
    items like discounted phones Verizon sells....on "Prizes" won by any
    means.....and, you may find one day, you'll pay taxes on things like a
    company car over a certain price where it's "value" is considered to be
    income.

    As for Verizon, you pay tax on the PHONE when you buy it, deal or no deal.
    You pay tax monthly on the service - apples and oranges.....!

    Now, calm down and quit while you're behind. Verizon is simply following the
    law - if you don't like the law, bitch to those who make the laws and leave
    Verizon out of the discussion...

    PC
     
  11. Elector

    Elector Guest

    "Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:JcT7c.2597$_U.1801@lakeread05...
    <snip>
    >
    > It appears that your wire and harness are too tight, Peter Pan....:)

    You
    > might also consider having your lithium dosage adjusted...
    >
    > You just don't "get it". Taxes on MSRP are ROUTINELY charged and

    paid on
    > items like discounted phones Verizon sells....on "Prizes" won by any
    > means.....and, you may find one day, you'll pay taxes on things like

    a
    > company car over a certain price where it's "value" is considered to

    be
    > income.
    >
    > As for Verizon, you pay tax on the PHONE when you buy it, deal or no

    deal.
    > You pay tax monthly on the service - apples and oranges.....!
    >
    > Now, calm down and quit while you're behind. Verizon is simply

    following the
    > law - if you don't like the law, bitch to those who make the laws

    and leave
    > Verizon out of the discussion...
    >
    > PC
    >
    >


    First off in New York there is a tax on usage of a company car over a
    certain amount. (The gas, repairs and tires and the like must be paid
    by the company or Government office) it called a perk.

    Secondly when you refer to Verizon having to tax for this and that, I
    have a true story that I have just went through with Verizon
    corporate.

    The State of New York has a cellular telephone contract with Verizon
    and in that contract it clearly is printed out that when we receive
    service each agency and political sub division will fill out its name,
    address, type of service and equipment it needs and its tax exempt
    number. Please remember this is stated in the contract.

    Now after years of service on 30 lines etc. (remember we have set
    these accounts up per mutual contract provision above) we get a letter
    in the mail that states " You have until such a date to submit the tax
    exempt certificates and if we do not receive them by this date Verizon
    is required by law to place you back on the tax lists"

    I called the toll free number for this representative in the tax
    compliance unit and she said Verizon is required to have that
    information, yada yada yada. I explained we are the State of New York
    and we don't pay State or Federal taxes per law. And that we would not
    be complying with Verizons request since on page 8 of the NYS and
    Verizon contract it clearly states our status.

    She then mumbled something about Verizons lawyers, at this juncture I
    told her to please have them contact us I am sure we would wipe the
    floor with them since we regulate and tax them. And the law they are
    quoting is NYS Tax code. Just wanted to let you know that just because
    they say they have the right to do it does not actually mean they are
    doing it right.

    Oh had a nice call from a supervisor who stated to disregard the
    letter and the account was all correct as it should. I did however
    send a Adobe version of the contract via email to them and now they
    have seen the light. Ha ha

    Elector
     
  12. Proconsul <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

    > No, but it has everything to do with the U.S. Tax Code. I should have
    > included your State Representative. As you said yourself, these sorts of
    > taxes can be Federal, State or a mix of the two - and the principle remains
    > clear...it is NOT Verizon's fault if you have to pay tax on a phone you get
    > on a "deal".


    The US Tax Code regulates the collection of sales tax by the states?

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003
     
  13. Proconsul

    Proconsul Guest

    "Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
    news:d_adnfvbs8oS7f3dRVn-uQ@lmi.net...
    | Proconsul <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
    |
    | > No, but it has everything to do with the U.S. Tax Code. I should have
    | > included your State Representative. As you said yourself, these sorts of
    | > taxes can be Federal, State or a mix of the two - and the principle
    remains
    | > clear...it is NOT Verizon's fault if you have to pay tax on a phone you
    get
    | > on a "deal".
    |
    | The US Tax Code regulates the collection of sales tax by the states?

    No, it regulates paying income tax on "perks", etc., such as company cars,
    "free" cars that you win, etc. I've already said that I should have
    mentioned state legislators - you know exactly what the quoted words
    mean....

    The POINT was, and is, that Verizon isn't responsible or deserving of all
    this vitriol for merely following the law.....

    Anyone who doesn't like the law should work with their elected
    representatives, both Federal AND State.....

    Enough of this pointless ragging....already!

    PC
     
  14. Quick

    Quick Guest


    >
    > As for Verizon, you pay tax on the PHONE when you buy it, deal or no deal.
    > You pay tax monthly on the service - apples and oranges.....!
    >
    > Now, calm down and quit while you're behind. Verizon is simply following

    the
    > law - if you don't like the law, bitch to those who make the laws and

    leave
    > Verizon out of the discussion...


    He is right. VZW could fix this. If they didn't subsidize the
    phones and charged full price for them they it would be clear
    what you are paying sales tax on. :)

    I think the situation is a bit more subtle and involved.
    VZW (or any of the providers) has nothing to do with it and
    certainly they would like nothing better than not to have to
    charge you the full tax on subsidized phones.

    I remember back when you used to get a free cell phone
    when signing for service (truely free and no tax). Then there
    was something about having to charge ($1) for it.

    States generally levy sales tax on retail goods. No tax
    on wholesale goods. In general something is wholesale if its
    being bought to be resold. Retail is when its sold to the consumer.
    This is generally determined by the buyer having some sort of
    license. My friend is a general contractor and can buy stuff at
    the the building supply store without paying tax. I buy stuff at
    the same store but I do pay tax.

    So I would guess the cellular providers are resellers for the
    cell phones? Have Cellular phones been special cased? I could
    imagine the states seeing that millions of dollars of retail product
    was getting into consumer hands with no sales tax being paid to
    the state and plugged the hole with special legislation. Is this what
    happened?

    You can go to a VZW store and simply purchase a phone without
    a plan. You pay full price for it and you pay tax on the actual price
    paid. You can get a subsidy on the phone if you sign a contract for
    service. The service is *not* priced differently depending on whether
    you get a phone (subsidized) or not. So the tax you pay on the price
    of the service does not differ if you get a subsidized phone or not.
    So I'm guessing that the argument is that if you get a subsidized phone
    and don't pay tax on the full price the retail sales tax has been
    circumvented. ??

    -Quick
     
  15. CharlesH

    CharlesH Guest

    In article <WZl7c.32254$%06.32060@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
    Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
    >Cellular phones are treated differently. The stores sell the phone with a
    >discount off an MSRP, contingent upon activation; they never collect the
    >actual amount of money of the MSRP and then get reimbursed later from the
    >manufacturer.


    This is position of the state of California, paraphrased from their
    WEB site:

    The product being sold is a combination of the phone plus service for some
    period. The phone part is taxable, the service isn't. Your first couple
    of monthly payments are actually paying off the difference between the
    MSRP of the phone and the upfront price you paid for the phone. So you
    really ARE paying (over several months) the full price of the phone,
    and thus are responsible for sales tax on the MSRP.

    A really creative interpretation.....
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?