NationStates Jolt Archive

If you go over the state line to buy cigarettes.

So you can have your vehicle impounded, lose your voting rights, etc. for your entire life if you try to save some money on cigs.

Legislation at its finest.

http://www.wkrn.com/node/119424

This year's tripling of Tennessee's cigarette tax has prompted state revenue officials to conduct surveillance of tobacco retailers just over state lines, suspecting Tennesseans are buying smokes in bulk in neighboring states with cheaper taxes.

Commissioner Reagan Farr said Friday he wants Tennesseans to know tobacco purchased out-of-state may be considered contraband. Buying and transporting large amounts of tobacco into the state is not only illegal, Farr said, it's costing retailers money.

I don't think that law will even hold up...

Yea, I think it pretty clearly interferes with the interstate commerce clause of Article One.

All taxation is illegitimate. I applaud the good people of Tennessee for doing their part in the fight against collectivism.

Time to move to Kentucky!

Yea, I think it pretty clearly interferes with the interstate commerce clause of Article One.
Yes, I think so too.

But Tennessee officials don't hold jurisdiction over tobacco retailers that is just over the border and not in their territory. What would they do, check everything coming across the border for a cigarette bought in Alabama?

Hmm, perhaps there is money to be made in smuggling...

This is no different than buying duty-free goods.

All taxation is illegitimate. I applaud the good people of Tennessee for doing their part in the fight against collectivism.

I am going to come over and shoot you in the knee. I trust you don't want the police to act collectively to catch me.

All taxation is illegitimate. I applaud the good people of Tennessee for doing their part in the fight against collectivism.
Can you name me a non-backwards state that got there without taxation?

Oh wait, there have never been any! History 1, your ridiculous ideology 0!

The end does not justify the means, murderer-rapist.

This is unlawful on so many levels. Interstate commerce clause, freedom of travel, and Unreasonable search and seizure are all in violation.

This law won't last long, something about interstate commerce ect. ect.

Even if there is no court ruling on it, I suspect that come the next state elections those who vote in favor of this law will be gone.

Time to move to Kentucky!

Come on up. :p

But really, I'd support a tripling of cigarette taxes nationwide if I could help it. I'm all for people's rights to do whatever they please to themselves, but when it begins to affect other people (secondhand smoke, smoking in public places, cars with children in them, etc.) then it becomes an issue. On the flip side I'd use some of the taxes to subsidize quitting methods (patches, gum, etc) for a few years. The rest would go towards roads. Ugh. I wonder how much money is lost in the economy because of bad roads (damaged vehicles, increased wear and tear, etc.)

If this law holds up, I wonder at the reaction of the border states to Tennessee will be? Surely they cant be happy with the situation.

Blueblood;13080176']If this law holds up, I wonder at the reaction of the border states to Tennessee will be? Surely they cant be happy with the situation.

I think they would be fine with it. More commerce for their states.

I think they would be fine with it. More commerce for their states.

I meant the other way around. I wonder how the border state feel about Tenn putting strict restrictions on commerce between the states. If this law is maintained, and they lose those customers, I have trouble believing they wont react in kind.

You need to read the whole article. Before we get caught up in the hysterics here, I think we need to be clear about the fact that it is NOT a felony to buy a pack... or a carton... or two cartons... or twenty cartons...

Possession of more than 25 cartons of untaxed cigarettes is a felony.

Yea, I think it pretty clearly interferes with the interstate commerce clause of Article One.Only if Congress passes a law saying Tennessee can't do it.

Article One doesn't limit the powers of the states, it provides powers to the Congress.

I don't think that law will even hold up...Sure it will.

Ridiculous!
We live near one of those sovereign First Nations of the Americas and over there there is not tax on tobacco. One is allowed to go there and buy all the cigs one wants. You don't even need a passport to go there. (which of course they COULD require. they are a sovereign nation afterall)




Apparently there is no law in the US requiring you to pay a personal income tax.

A guy in this movie was actually found not guilty because the jury was not provided with the text of the law he was supposedly being tried for.
According to the video tax on income only actually applies to profits one gains over what it cost to run a business. Personal income is supposed to be an equal exchange of your labor for the money. Thus you gained no profits.

"America: Freedom to Fascism"
available on google video



I wouldn't mind paying taxes if they went to help real people with real problems, but over half my taxes to the military-industrial complex.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

And to allow one person to own the entire planet or even half because they claim it came their way by some sort of "natural process" is just a joke. Control the food supply, and you control the population. Which is why they allow corporations to own farms in most states.

But Tennessee officials don't hold jurisdiction over tobacco retailers that is just over the border and not in their territory. What would they do, check everything coming across the border for a cigarette bought in Alabama?Exactly.

They can't make arrests in other states, but they can monitor cigarette retailers across the border, then follow patrons back across the line into Tennessee, pull them over and check for contraband.

I think smoking is horrible habit but then if you overtax anything in one place, people will travel somewhere else to get their supplies cheaper from there. It's how the capitalist market works.

You need to read the whole article. Before we get caught up in the hysterics here, I think we need to be clear about the fact that it is NOT a felony to buy a pack... or a carton... or two cartons... or twenty cartons...

The problem is this:

"If revenue agents believe that an individual is transporting more than two cartons of cigarettes into Tennessee, the vehicle carrying the cigarettes will be stopped and searched," Farr said. "If more than two cartons are found, the cigarettes will be seized and agents have the discretion to make arrests and seize the vehicle."

If you transport more than two cartons of cigarettes into Tennessee, you could be arrested and your vehicle seized. All this for possessing a certain quantity of a legal product because Tennessee wants to increase tax revenue.

Apparently there is no law in the US requiring you to pay a personal income tax.Internal Revenue Code, section 1.

Please.

A guy in this movie was actually found not guilty because the jury was not provided with the text of the law he was supposedly being tried for.I doubt it, though I'm not going to watch another scam tax video to hear more.

Juries in the United States very rarely look at the text of the law. The judge reads the law and explains it to the jury.

The problem is this:

If you transport more than two cartons of cigarettes into Tennessee, you could be arrested and your vehicle seized.It says agents have "discretion." I seriously doubt they're going to seize your car over two cartons.

All this for possessing a certain quantity of a legal product because Tennessee wants to increase tax revenue.And/or because they want to discourage smoking.

But either way, it's within their power to do it. It's up to the voters of Tennessee to determine their reaction.

Personally, I'd be all for it. But I don't live in Tennessee.

It says agents have "discretion." I seriously doubt they're going to seize your car over two cartons.
Yet, they're allowed to do so. Doubts to the contrary, powers given to the police are intended to be used and the enforcement pattern here seems to be using arrests and seizures as a deterrent to prevent people from going out of state for cigarettes.

And/or because they want to discourage smoking.
The state stands to gain an estimated $228 million from this tax increase, hence the powers given to revenue agents to follow and arrest Tennessee citizens that buy a legal product. So, no, I don't think the concern here is health.

But either way, it's within their power to do it. It's up to the voters of Tennessee to determine their reaction.

Personally, I'd be all for it. But I don't live in Tennessee.

I'm against it personally, the enforcement measures not the tax. Hopefully the lawmakers that approved of these measures will be put out of office soon. If the state budget is really in such dire need of funds that they will make transporting legal goods obtained legally a crime, then that entire government needs a change.

Exactly.

They can't make arrests in other states, but they can monitor cigarette retailers across the border, then follow patrons back across the line into Tennessee, pull them over and check for contraband.
Me thinks with how much work it would be to do such they should have not bothered

And what exactly would be the point of a tax without enforcement?

And whats the point when realistic enforcement costs more then the tax generates?

I'm against it personally, the enforcement measures not the tax.And what exactly would be the point of a tax without enforcement?

And what exactly would be the point of a tax without enforcement?

The measure I'm talking about don't enforce the tax, they restrict where cigarettes can be bought in order to ensure that only taxed goods are bought.

Pretty soon Marijuana will be legal but cigarettes won't be.

Internal Revenue Code, section 1.

Please.

I doubt it, though I'm not going to watch another scam tax video to hear more.

Juries in the United States very rarely look at the text of the law. The judge reads the law and explains it to the jury.


*****edit in****
I must say, I believe that IRS code may not be a law, but
merely IRS code.
There apparently is no law passed by congress requiring an
individual to pay an income tax.
**************



I don't blame you. "I don't wanna pay taxes!" does sound like such a childish scream. But in the guy's case that was his main argument, that there was no such law. He and his lawyer said, show him the law and he will pay the income tax. They could not. The jury asked for the text of the law and they were not provided with it, so they found the guy not guilty.


I still have like 40 minutes to watch in this movie,
but at one point the film-maker starts talking about gold
and the gold-standard. I really don't care anything about gold
in general, so that part really turned me off.



Why doesn't my signature show up?
I checked the stickies over somewhere about signatures and they
said nothing about them being turned off.

All these God-damned taxes, you'd think this was steampunk robin hood. Where the cheif magistrate sends his sheriff to collect taxes door to door on a regular basis.

Get me some monks
A .22 rimfire
And a sixteen year old girl!


Infact.. forget the monks!

Infact.. forget the rimfire!!!

This guy.... :D

I like this guy!

Why doesn't my signature show up?
I checked the stickies over somewhere about signatures and they
said nothing about them being turned off.

I can see it. The problem is probably that signatures are turned off in your Options; if you click on User CP you can change that.

*****edit in****
I must say, I believe that IRS code may not be a law, but
merely IRS code.
There apparently is no law passed by congress requiring an
individual to pay an income tax.
**************


Wait, what?

*****edit in****
I must say, I believe that IRS code may not be a law, but
merely IRS code.
There apparently is no law passed by congress requiring an
individual to pay an income tax.
**************


Wait, what?

*****edit in****
I must say, I believe that IRS code may not be a law, but
merely IRS code.
There apparently is no law passed by congress requiring an
individual to pay an income tax.
**************



I don't blame you. "I don't wanna pay taxes!" does sound like such a childish scream. But in the guy's case that was his main argument, that there was no such law. He and his lawyer said, show him the law and he will pay the income tax. They could not. The jury asked for the text of the law and they were not provided with it, so they found the guy not guilty.


I still have like 40 minutes to watch in this movie,
but at one point the film-maker starts talking about gold
and the gold-standard. I really don't care anything about gold
in general, so that part really turned me off.



Why doesn't my signature show up?
I checked the stickies over somewhere about signatures and they
said nothing about them being turned off.


Some circus trial with moron prosecutors and an apparently incompetent judge (if this actually happened to begin with) doesn't affect the reality of the United States Code TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

Or the reality of the 16th amendment to the constitution.

Case closed.

All these God-damned taxes, you'd think this was steampunk robin hood. Where the cheif magistrate sends his sheriff to collect taxes door to door on a regular basis.

Get me some monks
A .22 rimfire
And a sixteen year old girl!


Infact.. forget the monks!

Infact.. forget the rimfire!!!

furureama. 20 points.

*****edit in****
I must say, I believe that IRS code may not be a law, but
merely IRS code.
There apparently is no law passed by congress requiring an
individual to pay an income tax.
**************



I don't blame you. "I don't wanna pay taxes!" does sound like such a childish scream. But in the guy's case that was his main argument, that there was no such law. He and his lawyer said, show him the law and he will pay the income tax. They could not. The jury asked for the text of the law and they were not provided with it, so they found the guy not guilty.


I still have like 40 minutes to watch in this movie,
but at one point the film-maker starts talking about gold
and the gold-standard. I really don't care anything about gold
in general, so that part really turned me off.



Why doesn't my signature show up?
I checked the stickies over somewhere about signatures and they
said nothing about them being turned off.

I've been unable to find any case where a tax protester won by using this defense. Does this video give a case name, location, court?

Or the reality of the 16th amendment to the constitution.

/lawgeek

The 16th amendment ot the constitution does not enable the government to collect taxes. Such power is considered plenary. Art 1 sec 2 also makes reference to tax powers.

Rather the 16th amendment merely lays out the uniform methodology of such tax collection.

/lawgeek

I've been unable to find any case where a tax protester won by using this defense. Does this video give a case name, location, court?

nobody has, at any time, ever won a case with the argument that the tax code is not law, or any other such nonsense. A case or two may have been won because of reversable error on behaof of the judge who fucked up jury instructions, but that's totally besides the point.

nobody has, at any time, ever won a case with the argument that the tax code is not law, or any other such nonsense. A case or two may have been won because of reversable error on behaof of the judge who fucked up jury instructions, but that's totally besides the point.

I know. I can't even find one of those.

The measure I'm talking about don't enforce the tax, they restrict where cigarettes can be bought in order to ensure that only taxed goods are bought.In other words, it prohibits smuggling?

Big deal.

/lawgeek

The 16th amendment ot the constitution does not enable the government to collect taxes. Such power is considered plenary. Art 1 sec 2 also makes reference to tax powers.

Rather the 16th amendment merely lays out the uniform methodology of such tax collection.

/lawgeek

Indeedy, removes the apportionment requirement.

On a related note, there is a case... starts with a B.... Bashebas or something like that, in which, while explaining the same point you're making, the judge uttered the words "the 16th amendment does not grant the government any new powers," which tax-cheat morons have taken to mean that the 16th amendment does not permit the government to tax incomes, and that the government therefore cannot tax incomes.

In other words, it prohibits smuggling?

Big deal.

No, it creates smuggling and simultaneously seeks to prohibit it. An odd move to make when the goods that are illegal to transport into Tennessee are already legally available there and legally transported there at the same time. It's a bald-faced effort to restrict consumers to certain suppliers in order to make the state money, which obviously makes it a big deal.

They should just take the final step and outlaw cigs and booze nationwide so I can start making a fortune on the black market selling alcohol, tobacco, and firearms and mow down eight year olds in the streets with a Chicago typewriter like in the good old days.

No, it creates smuggling and simultaneously seeks to prohibit it. An odd move to make when the goods that are illegal to transport into Tennessee are already legally available there and legally transported there at the same time. It's a bald-faced effort to restrict consumers to certain suppliers in order to make the state money, which obviously makes it a big deal.Maybe you don't realize how much of smuggling, historically, has been an attempt to evade taxes rather than to transport illegal goods.

There is nothing unique about this instance. It only caught anyone's attention because the increase in the tax (tripling) was itself noteworthy.

Heres a way to save even more money on cigs.

Don't smoke.

Heres a way to save even more money on cigs.

Don't smoke.
I don't smoke, I don't use illegal drugs, I only drink on special occasions. I still think that people should be able to choose how to live their lives, even if it means self-destructive behavior. When you criminalize things that aren't real crimes you still create real criminals.

I don't smoke, I don't use illegal drugs, I only drink on special occasions. I still think that people should be able to choose how to live their lives, even if it means self-destructive behavior. When you criminalize things that aren't real crimes you still create real criminals.

Did I say criminalize smoking?

Maybe you don't realize how much of smuggling, historically, has been an attempt to evade taxes rather than to transport illegal goods.

There is nothing unique about this instance. It only caught anyone's attention because the increase in the tax (tripling) was itself noteworthy.

Tax evasion? Is it really tax evasion for a citizen of one state to buy from another state with lower taxes?

Just a few links on this subject.

Cigarette tax Counter Productive (http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/12/pf/taxes/cigarette_excise/index.htm) (2005)

State Excise Taxation: Horse-and-Buggy Taxes in an Electronic Age in PDF format (http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/72c2d12f36538b66b90f75f8f17052c7.pdf). Good read.


The Truth about Health Impact Fees (http://www.taxpayersleague.org/Archives/HealthImpact/HealthImpact.htm) Minnesota Tax Payers League

If you go over the state line to buy cigarettes.

So you can have your vehicle impounded, lose your voting rights, etc. for your entire life if you try to save some money on cigs.

Legislation at its finest.

http://www.wkrn.com/node/119424

This year's tripling of Tennessee's cigarette tax has prompted state revenue officials to conduct surveillance of tobacco retailers just over state lines, suspecting Tennesseans are buying smokes in bulk in neighboring states with cheaper taxes.

Commissioner Reagan Farr said Friday he wants Tennesseans to know tobacco purchased out-of-state may be considered contraband. Buying and transporting large amounts of tobacco into the state is not only illegal, Farr said, it's costing retailers money.

Think of all the tax dollars they wasted debating and writing and rewriting said useless legislation while real felons, you know murderers and rapists, get minimal sentences that would make going to high school seem like an eternity.

Tax evasion? Is it really tax evasion for a citizen of one state to buy from another state with lower taxes?Before we even get into that, it would help to know where to begin.

Are you the sort of free-market libertarian who would make precisely the same argument about Americans driving to, say, Canada to buy bulk goods taxed at lower rates in that country? [EDIT: Under current exchange rates the likelihood of an advantage is smaller than in the fairly recent past, but for the sake of the current argument it makes sense to ignore that.]

Or are you a federalist who thinks that the argument comes down to inherent difference between interstate borders and international borders?

I ask because these are very, very different arguments.

Exactly.

They can't make arrests in other states, but they can monitor cigarette retailers across the border, then follow patrons back across the line into Tennessee, pull them over and check for contraband.

If I lived in TN and my law enforcement officers were doing that I would be raising hell about my tax dollars being waisted

If I lived in TN and my law enforcement officers were doing that I would be raising hell about my tax dollars being waistedIf it raises more revenue than it costs, then where do you find the waste?

I would think my law enforcement would have better things more helpful to do...like stopping drunks...cracking down on meth dealers...umm dealing with domestic violence...a lot more important than making sure people don't buy smokes from across the border...

Or are you a federalist who thinks that the argument comes down to inherent difference between interstate borders and international borders?

I ask because these are very, very different arguments.

That one. Now, I will admit, interstate commerce is not my strong area. That being said, a state is free to make cigarettes illegal in the state. States are also free to assess a tax on goods bought out of state and brought into the state via a use tax obligation.

Indeed, many states do this. If I, as a resident of MA, drive over to NH where there is no sales tax, buy a tv, bring it back to boston, and procede to use that tv here in MA, I owe the state of MA a use tax. That's fine. And if people evade paying a legally owed use tax on cigarettes bought out of state, that's tax fraud, and certainly criminal.

What bothers me, what REALLY bothers me is that the state has made it illegal to import goods (not evade tax on those goods, it criminalizes mere importation) that are legal within the state.

In other words, if a state makes marijuana illegal, then it can make posession illegal, regardless of whether it came from in state or out of state. In such a circumstance it is not the bringing it INTO the state that is illegal under state law, it is the posession.

This is not making posession illegal. It is making importing of an otherwise legal product from another state illegal. And that seems to me to violate interstate commerce, unless you can explain why it doesn't. Because, frankly, saying "you can't bring this item in from another state" seems to be the very definition of a restriction on interstate commerce.

Now, of course, it is not true that states can NEVER restrict imports from other states, as noted in Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, the court noted:

"as long as the state does not needlessly restrict interstate trade or attempt to place itself in a position of economic isolation, it retains broad authority to protect the health and safety of its citizens"

The problem is...cigarettes are legal in the state. So they can't claim to be protecting the health of citizens by criminalizing the importation of goods that are freely bought. They CAN argue that the lower cost in other states means more cigarettes would be bought and thus limiting it and ofrcing them to buy high cost cigarettes, or not at all, will improve health by meaning less will be bought.

The problem with that is there are less intrusive measures to do so. Namely..importing a use tax, which would assess a tax on the cigarettes of equal value.

The problem with that is there are less intrusive measures to do so. Namely..importing a use tax, which would assess a tax on the cigarettes of equal value.That would be fine, if it were believable even for a moment that a use tax on cigarettes could effectively be enforced.

Hmm, perhaps there is money to be made in smuggling...
Even if its' 50 cents less to buy a smuggled pack it's still 50 cents less.

*Starts the "Smokey and the Bandit" theme.*

If you go over the state line to buy cigarettes.

So you can have your vehicle impounded, lose your voting rights, etc. for your entire life if you try to save some money on cigs.

Legislation at its finest.

http://www.wkrn.com/node/119424

This year's tripling of Tennessee's cigarette tax has prompted state revenue officials to conduct surveillance of tobacco retailers just over state lines, suspecting Tennesseans are buying smokes in bulk in neighboring states with cheaper taxes.

Commissioner Reagan Farr said Friday he wants Tennesseans to know tobacco purchased out-of-state may be considered contraband. Buying and transporting large amounts of tobacco into the state is not only illegal, Farr said, it's costing retailers money.

What a horrible law/ruling. Hopefully it gets shot down.

Since all taxation is illegitimate, any law that purports to require you to pay taxes is also illegitimate, and there is no moral obligation to obey it.

uh huh, sure.

Internal Revenue Code, section 1.

Since all taxation is illegitimate, any law that purports to require you to pay taxes is also illegitimate, and there is no moral obligation to obey it.

Before we even get into that, it would help to know where to begin.

Are you the sort of free-market libertarian who would make precisely the same argument about Americans driving to, say, Canada to buy bulk goods taxed at lower rates in that country? [EDIT: Under current exchange rates the likelihood of an advantage is smaller than in the fairly recent past, but for the sake of the current argument it makes sense to ignore that.]

Or are you a federalist who thinks that the argument comes down to inherent difference between interstate borders and international borders?

I ask because these are very, very different arguments.

More of the second than the first, though I don't have much of a hard stance on economics. My question was just an honest inquiry, because my understanding of tax evasion is that it occurs when someone avoids paying a tax, rather than paying taxes for the same goods somewhere else. Neo Art already pointed this out, but this measure deals with importation, not tax evasion.