7 Comments to “The Capitol Pressroom for May 11, 2011”

1. Sam Ark says:

   05/11/2011 at 5:54 pm

   When I or any other New Yorker purchase products in other jurisdictions, (i.e. appliances, vehicles, clothing etc. purchased in other states or countries) we may not be subject to the NY sales tax, but it was my understanding that we are subject to the USE tax, and we are personally liable to pay it. Thus, at the time we file our tax return, we must add any USE tax we owe to our payment. We do not go to the foreign state or jurisdiction to collect the New York tax. As purchaser, it is our responsibility.

   Reply
2. John Kane says:

   05/12/2011 at 4:50 am

   Sam,
   The use tax for NY states that there are “Exemptions from the cigarette use tax”. There is no tax liability for cigarettes if the quantity brought into the state for use is two cartons or less. The instructions for Form CG- 15 can be found at http://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/2010/altab/cg15i_710.pdf.

   The state’s position is that two cartons of cigarettes can be brought into the state, with no tax liability, from anywhere in the world EXCEPT Native lands.

   Reply
3. John Kane says:

   05/12/2011 at 3:00 pm

   Sam,
   You are correct that the consumer is responsible under NYS law for use tax. But ther is no tax liability for cigarettes brought into the state if they are brought in in quantities of two cartons or less. The instructions for the use tax form (Form CG-15) can be found at: http://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/2010/altab/cg15i_710.pdf.
   According to the state, cigarettes without a NYS tax stamp can be brought into the state from anywhere in the world except Native lands.

   Reply
4. John Kane says:

   05/12/2011 at 3:35 pm

   For all Calvin’s emphasis on rule of law, it must be noted that there is no law that prohibits our sales of unstamped cigarettes to non-natives. And there is no law prohibiting non-natives from purchasing unstamped cigarettes from Native retailers. In fact as I have stated, there are clear laws that accomodate those purchases whem that product is brought into the state for use.

   Reply
5. John Kane says:

   05/12/2011 at 3:37 pm

   See the instructions for the Cigarette Use Tax at http://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/2010/altab/cg15i_710.pdf.
   Note the Exemption clause.

   Reply
6. Sam Ark says:

   05/15/2011 at 12:29 pm

   If the sovereignty of Native lands is to have any meaning, that exemption either: 1.) should apply to sales by Native retailers on Native lands (of 400 cigarettes or less) just as it applies to such sales made in other states, or 2.) on the basis of equal application of the law, the exemption should not apply to ‘other states’ if it does not apply to cigarettes (or any other products) brought into New York from Native lands.

   The operative words seem to be “brought into the state on, or in the possession of, any person”. The argument is that if the exemption does not apply to every sovereignty, it should apply to no sovereignty.

   Reply
7. Brian Simons says:

   05/24/2011 at 11:43 am

   I listen to NPR every day and there have been plenty of times when I wanted to call in or comment on something I’ve heard, but never so much as when I heard the guest on Capital Press Room last night.

   Unfortunately, I got into my car at the tail end of the interview and didn’t even hear who it was. It was the program on May 23rd, and he was commenting on why he was against gay marriage in NY.

   I’m part of generation X and really doesn’t much care what other people want to do in their personal lives, I’m not gay and I’m not active in trying to push gay marriage forward. However, what the guest said last night made me angry and I thought Susan should have put him on the spot and called him out.

   He said he was against Gay marriage because it would cost the state more money. When asked why it would cost the state more money, he stated examples such as married people being able to pass their estate on to their spouse, thus avoiding paying the estate tax on it. He also touched on benefits the state would have to pay for spouses of gay workers.

   The reason I find this absolutely despicable is that it is clear cut discrimination. I have no doubt the guest was a conservative who on any other issue would be saying the state should take less of your money in taxes, particularly the estate tax. It’s apparently necessary for gay people to pay it though or else it will cost the state too much money.

   I’m not religious, and I don’t agree on banning gay marriage on religious grounds. I do respect religious people’s opinions and reasons for their stance on the issue. Your guest last night gave reasons that can’t be explained as anything but discriminatory. Denying one group the same tax benefits or working benefits as another based solely on sexual orientation.

   I wonder how many straight people in NY received welfare, section 8, subsidized housing, food stamps and medicaid? Perhaps we can find a way to classify the majority of them into some convenient group and deny them benefits. That would surely save NYS a ton of money so we could afford to let all of the gay millionaires legally pass their estate to their partner without breaking the bank.

   Reply