You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
9

[–] voats4goats [S] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Those efforts eventually paid off, as many online sites that didn't previously charge a sales tax now do. However, Connecticut is not stopping there. It wants online vendors to pay up for past purchases, or share purchase records so that it can go after consumers directly.

According to WFSB, a local CBS affiliate in Connecticut, Newegg chose the latter route. As a result, some customers who purchased electronics and other items from Newegg in 2014 through 2016 are receiving bills in the mail for taxes owed.

0
11

[–] Hayashimo 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

I can't imagine that would hold up in court. Tacking on fees not agreed to by the customer after the fact.

1
23

[–] everef 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago 

It's a tax. It doesn't matter if you agreed to it or if you even knew about it at the time.

0
1

[–] lanre 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

They'll argue that it was tax avoidance and it should've been paid from the start or some bs.

0
5

[–] Caesarkid1 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Predatory.

0
6

[–] 0110001111 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

That's such a bad slippery slope to go down. What stops Connecticut from creating taxes out of thin air and slamming users with more "fees"? Absolutely nothing is what...

0
2

[–] pnwpatriot97 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

IS THIS WHY ADAM WEST WOULDN'T GO NEAR CONNECTICUT OR IS THAT "JUST ANOTHER COINCIDENCE"??

0
1

[–] BlueDrache 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

How does this not fall afoul of either Statute of Limitations or something else that is on the tip of the tongue but not emerging from the depths of my depraved mind.

0
0

[–] voats4goats [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Statute In CT looks like three years though IDK how they are able to ask for taxes owned in 2014. Seems like they are hoping people don't notice and push back?