Can Washington Charge Unauthorized Downloaders With Tax Evasion?
from the it-worked-for-al-capone dept
A bunch of states have been pushing forward with plans to add taxes on digital downloads. The state of Washington apparently passed just such a law, which is scheduled to go into effect on July 26th. Nate sent in a note, pointing out that under a strict reading of the details of the bill you could see how the state could go after unauthorized downloaders as "tax evaders." Now, that may not be the case (and it would be great if we could get someone from the state to clarify), but it seems that what Nate is likely referring to is this explanation in the Q&A about the bill:What is the value of the digital product for use tax purposes?From that, you could easily conclude that anyone in Washington who downloads unauthorized files is now expected to pay a tax based on the "retail selling price" of the files. And, from there, it's not hard to see how failing to pay such a tax, could eventually be seen as tax evasion. How excited do you think that makes the RIAA? Remember, this is the same RIAA that suggested that the feds use copyright infringement laws to arrest drug dealers. You can check out the specific text (in Section 304) within the full bill (pdf file), which is basically the same as what's written above.
The value is the purchase price of the digital product. If the digital product is acquired by means other than a purchase, the value of the digital product is determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product.
The feds eventually went after Al Capone on tax evasion charges. Are file sharers next?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: file sharing, tax evasion, washington state
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Free codes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free codes
Not sure if that would apply to illegal downloads or not, but it seems like it should cover both the Xbox title and open source software such as Linux or Openoffice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free codes
Note that the Q&A talks about products "...given away for free..." but the bill itself actually says "...obtained by the end user free of charge..." The Q&A sounds like it would not apply to illegal downloads, since they arguable weren't "given away" but rather were "stolen." ("Stolen" in quotes because I'm well aware of the difference in copyright infringement and theft but I'm not sure that legal officials would be.) However, a literal reading of the bill makes no such distinction, and I'm not sure how that would play out in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Free codes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Free codes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free codes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"the value of the digital product is determined by the retail selling price of a similar digital product. "
Mike, you better teach them about value!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scary
would be for services like 'mozy' or 'IDISK' or any other remote network file system. There are no exemptions for any type of private or public off site file storage systems. Anytime you pull a file from a networked disk - you technically have to pay the tax all over again for it.
Once again, people with no clue about how technology works mucking up the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not really. Here's what it actually says:
Created solely for the business needs of the person who created the digital good and is not the type of digital good that is offered for sale, such as business email communications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, with very specific limitations, and it appears to only apply to those given away for free on purpose -- so if you download songs in an authorized way.
The question is what happens to unauthorized downloaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nowhere did it state that the rights holder of the digital product (ie, record label) had to intend to give it away on purpose, just the seller who would be the average Joe uploading to these websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hang on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, there's precedent. In my home state we have the concept of "usage tax" for as long as I've been filing taxes (15+ years.. my God I'm old). In short this means that when you file your state tax forms, you're supposed to declare the value of anything that you purchased out of state and did not pay sales tax on. The intent is to get everyone to voluntarily pay state sales tax on things they bought outside the state.
I've been told by a CPA that it was specifically created to cover mail-order purchases, and that it would theoretically apply to downloads as well. In reality, there's just no practical way to determine who is being truthful or not, so it's not really possible to go after the use tax offenders. In practice, most people simply enter "0" and most tax preparers or accountants don't even ask you about it, so it's really a useless gesture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol ...
Let's sue them for discrimination of data bits as some bits cost more than others (i.e. different services/products) on the same underlying communication technology.
Do you pay for the whole product if the you are missing the last bit of data?
Are they also charging a tax for accessing news services that are behind a paywall? You clearly download data to access those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legislating a technological fix for these issues will not work. I already pay the crazy 9.5% sales tax on all downloads. What about streaming files? there are way too many existing and evolving business models out there to ever expect a govt. bureaucracy to be able to price these things out. The concept is so flawed that I almost think the story must have it's facts wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if it's not for sale?
> digital product. If the digital product
> is acquired by means other than a purchase,
> the value of the digital product is determined
> by the retail selling price of a similar
> digital product.
Personally, the only time I turn to Limewire or some other file-sharing app is when I can't find what I'm looking for for sale on any commercial service.
So if it's not actually for sale anywhere, can the state still expect a tax payment on the unauthorized download?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if it's not for sale?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I get a good look at a rancid T-Bone steak by sticking my head up a bull's ass, I'm not gonna take the butcher's word for it that it's fresh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My question concerns artists who donate their music though. The law seems to imply that if a band gives its music away, we have to pay a tax on it. That's really stupid. It's not like you have to pay taxes on watching commercials...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The thing to keep in mind here is the intent and purpose of the item given. Think of this like winning a prize on a game show. The winner is still responcible for paying tax on the value of the prize...
Why should digital goods be any different?
Like those that donate prizes to be given away on game shows, those giving away free content do it for marketing purposes. So taxing the good is not the real question here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're a professional musician, your "free" song is not "noncommercial." It would not be created for an internal audience, unless the artists wanted to put a bunch of hoops fans would have to jump through to get it. And because music is the type of digital good that is offered for sale, the last exception wouldn't apply either.
I think even streaming samples on Amazon would be covered under the "streamed and accessed digital goods" section combined with the section which states that "It does not matter if the purchaser obtains a permanent or nonpermanent right of use."
And how would the courts interpret the law in relation to open source software. Sure, we think that open source software is not commercial, but clearly office suites are commercially available. Would a judge understand the difference? Is there a difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks. Here's the section:
That seems to contradict 304(3)
606 seems to say that if you didn't pay for it, it won't be taxed. 304(3), on the other hand, seems to say that if you didn't pay for it, taxes will still be accessed at the "retail price." Mmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A strict reading of this would mean that if one downloaded OpenSuSE Linux then one would owe the tax on the sale price of an equivalent box set of SuSE as SuSE contains OpenSuSE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's like saying if you're caught speeding on the highway, you might as well kill the cop since you're already breaking the law. The degree of punishment makes a pretty big difference to most of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tax Invasion Opens Doors...
1. Bigger stick to come after you with - the whole, we won't tell the various government agencies that we suspect you of illegally acquiring copyrighted materials if you just pay us our $5k go away money.
2. They turn you over to the government agencies in the hope that they'll do the leg work and turn a civil issue into a criminal one. One where maybe they'll be able to raid your home for evidence.
Of course, don't forget when it comes to collecting taxes you start to see preverse logic. Something like, you shared a file on bit-torrent so you are now the seller and responsible for sales tax on the 3,000 downloads we think occured. You are also now a business and don't have a business license so we are charging you with fraud and various penalities and fees.
I can think of no single worse thing to happen to the Internet than a tax on digital goods of any kind. Washington should be the battleground for this and if there are any organizations that are fighting this I would like to know so I can contribute to it.
Remember we elect these clowns and the squeaky well gets the grease - stop rolling over America and stand of against excessive taxation - it doesn't just have to happen.
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about theft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about theft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think they could abuse this even more.
What is to stop them from making this kind of leap or even using such a law as a basis for wiretaps or other types of surveillance?
-Pjerky
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You now owe a tax
Thank you for the download.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You now owe a tax
It's Faust 3.0, and only the government wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You now owe a tax
I'm charging $100 million. I'll include the millions in tax evasion in my lawsuit or you can settle with me for just $100.
Is that called extortion or blackmail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about subscriptions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about subscriptions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next?
The bad guys in Gotham had this same problem once. Their solution, and the solution I advocate - hire the Joker to burn the world down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RAS is prewritten software provided remotely. In other words, the buyer pays the seller for the right to access and use the software, which resides on the seller’s server or the server of a third party. (An Application Service Provider is an example of a business that may provide RAS.) (See section 301(6)(b) of the digital goods bill). Before the effective date of the digital goods bill, income derived from providing RAS was subject to business and occupation (B&O) tax under the Service & Other Activities classification. Effective July 26, 2009, the sale of RAS is classified as a retail sale for B&O tax purposes and is subject to sales or use tax. The purchase of prewritten software is exempt if the purchaser uses the software to provides RAS. (See section 302(2)(f) of the digital products bill).
Does this mean they can charge a tax on online game subscriptions? As in, will a WoW subscription be raised to $16.43 for WA residents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conspiracy Theory
I'm thinking about Microsoft specifically, but Blizzard certainly merits mention...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I live in WA
While stretching it to hit P2P, freeware/open-source, and free SAAS is possible, and would suck, WA is pretty lazy about this sort of thing. Tax revenue collected from this wouldn't even come close to covering the cost for law-enforcement and lawyers. WA is broke, they won't money to make less money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Purchased Product
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who determines what a "similar digital product" is?
Couldn't anyone say that a similar free product is 500X more expensive than it really is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not going to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Multiple Downloads of the Same Product?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same old
Meh. There are too many exceptions (which amount to subsidies), etc. Further, there is no authority of law here to REQUIRE anybody to charge use tax. Only for recipients to pay it... which has existed for years.
The thing to be concerned about here is: how to they plan to enforce it? There is nothing in the Constitution that allows State A to force someone in State B to collect or pay State A taxes. State A can only exhort its own citizens to pay the tax... and there is no good way to enforce that, because there is no way for it to demand records from those out-of-state companies. There are only 2 ways to enforce this: the "honor system", and intrusion. The intrusion would have to take the form of eavesdropping on transactions (totally unacceptable), or somehow forcing out-of-state businesses to "voluntarily" turn over their customer records (also unacceptable).
This problem has existed for a couple of hundred years, and I refuse to believe that it is a much large percentage of the economy than it has ever been! Ever heard of Sears & Roebuck? Montgomery Ward? And others of course. Mail order was a huge part of the economy 150 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hahahahaha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This will help the industry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
_digital_ download?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only in the Mind of Obama
So why not tax content, especially that obtained under questionable circumstances?
What better way to unite the Patriot Act, the RIAA, the PMRC (Al Gore has to find a way back...), the PTA (homework!), AARP (pro-bandwidth-capping), the content providers, cable and telephone companies, the Heritage Foundation (DL = porn), La Raza (street vendors will still be able to sell bootlegs, so they're not affected...) - and raise "much needed revenues" at the same time!
Its a total win-win!
Especially when Hilary Rosen becomes the next Supreme Court appointee!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad summary?
Before: Whether download or a subscription, if it was storable onto your drive, subject to sales tax.
What will be: Whether it is stored, or streamed, or simply a service like EQ, WoW, etc., subject to tax.
There is something else too, but I can't mention it until I contact my DoR to double check on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double Jeopardy
Over 10 years ago, Washington State (and other states) used this sort of logic in prosecuting marijuana by creating a "tax stamp". Anyone caught was charged with tax evasion in addition to whatever drug laws had been broken. The law was eventually overturned by the fact that you could not tax something that was itself illegal. No one (other than stamp collectors) was ever known to have bought them.
While taxing LEGAL digital downloads is certainly within the realm of this law, taxing something that is not falls into this same issue, at least in Washington.
IANAL, YMMV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Double Jeopardy
Now there would be a nice car of worms opened!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
boo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This makes me laugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright law
The industry is constantly trying to reshape the debate, then turn around and use the perspective they created to point out loopholes in the system where the law doesn't live up to the way THEY imagine it.
This bill reeks so bad I can hardly breathe, but rather than leaving a treatise on copyright infringement (there are plenty of good ones out there already), I will end with a quote from Thomas Jefferson WHO HELPED WRITE OUR EARLY "COPYRIGHT" LAW.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell you what, I will happily pay tax for every good song I download if I can get a tax break for the dollar amount I have spent on every garbage song and album that I have purchased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Going into court and fighting your 75 mph speeding ticket with the defense that you were going at least 100MPH wouldn't be a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess the old
Anyways, since the US already have gone extreme socialism in the controll apparatus department, why not with taxation?
After all, they did say: be all that you can be!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the Wa Dept of Rev Q&A
This looks like it is only meant to collect the tax when money changes hands for some kind of digital good or service. If it is poorly written, it will probably get challenged in the courts and/or amended in the next legislative session.
Maybe Tim Eyman can start another one of his reckless initiatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's like we're in the medieval ages
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watunes, The New Music Industry!
Watunes offers services for the entire independent music community, whether you already have digital representation or are just getting started in the digital world. We make it easy to distribute your content to digital outlets, promote your content using our innovative marketing systems, and manage your catalog and sales using our first-class technology.
WaTunes is a social media distribution service that enables artists, groups, and record labels to sell music, music videos, and audiobooks through leading online entertainment retailers, including iTunes,ShockHound, and eMusic. Artists and labels can sell unlimited music and earn 100% of their profits – ALL FOR FREE! In fact, as of Tuesday June 9th, we signed NBA Legend and Hall of Famer Earl ‘the Pearl’ Monroe who owns record label Reverse Spin Records. The link is listed right below & you can either click on it and/or copy & paste into your browser. I've also attached a PDF file of all the other services we're affiliated with should you choose to upgrade to our VIP service! Please direct any further inquires, comments, questions, or concerns to us. We're more than elated to serve you anyway we possibly can.
Best,
Sammie
Earl "the Pearl" Monroe link:
http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en&q=watunes&oe=UTF-8&um=1&am p;ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn
--
watunes.com
Sammie Houston
SVP, Client Services
e-mail: sammiehouston@watunes.com
Skype ID: sammie.houston
Office: 678-598-2439
Sneak Preview: http://tinyurl.com/dh3mum
Youtube advertisements:
http://www.youtube.co/watch?v=vJhsSKB2-u4
http://www.youtube.comwatch?v=O2AYrc DVhCs
Check out our Reviews, add your comments & feedback too:
http://www.rateitall.com/i-1125252
watunes.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
taxes on internet peurchases
[ link to this | view in chronology ]