Looking at something at Brownells, they now charge WA tax.

I know the FFL's receiving your item (transfer) collect tax.

It seems really obvious that the tax is paid, or you might owe the difference, however;

sounds like a potential pain in the ass if your FFL wants to charge you full tax and argue "I am doing what the State told me to do".

Anyone had any problems?

https://dor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/Docs/Pubs/SpecialNotices/sn_14_Firearms.pdf

https://www.ar15.com/forums/Hometown/Out-of-state-firearms-retailers-starting-to-collect-sales-tax-at-time-of-sale-check-your-receipts-/15-628362/

Quantico Tactical (Proven Arms, whatever) was caught doing this recently. Hopefully they have sorted it out now ...

Thank you for the link, the problem persists unless I am missing something.

Brownells, the licensed dealer, dings me tax, the firearm arrives locally, based upon the link;

Keeps the requirement for firearms dealers to collect sales or use tax from the
transferee on interstate firearms transfers by a licensed dealer.

Is the interstate transfer of a firearm from a licensed dealer subject to sales tax or
use tax?
Yes. An in-state firearms dealer involved in the transfer of a firearm from an out-of state
licensed firearms dealer to an unlicensed person in this state (interstate transfers)
remains responsible for collecting use tax from the transferee.

This is EXACTLY the clusterfuck I was trying to avoid, my old stand by FFL closed up shop or I would just go have a face-to-face chat in advance of ordering, I may have to do that anyway with any new FFL I work with.

Show the FFL that you already paid tax?

The invoice provided to the shop should show any tax paid. At that point, the shop is only required to collect the difference in tax between what was paid and what is owed. The issue you are worried about is a recent development with WA requiring online retailers to collect tax depending on how much business they do within the state. Most shops that I know of already know how to process transfers on items where tax, or partial tax, has already been collected. So far, the only shop that I've heard that has issues with double taxing is Quantico.

It seems really obvious that the tax is paid, or you might owe the difference, however;

sounds like a potential pain in the ass if your FFL wants to charge you full tax and argue "I am doing what the State told me to do".

Most FFL's are great, some are PITA's

Thanks for the comments everyone.

Amongst Other Things,
Washington is turning into one of the Worst Tax States in the Country.

IIRC our cell phone taxes highest in U.S.

I’m not calculating and collecting any discrepancies in the taxes charged by out of state retailers as part of this clusterfuck. Brownells is screwing up the taxes, but the WA DoR can audit them and get it corrected, I’m not doing it for them.

The only time I calculate a difference is if someone paid sales tax in the originating state that is lower than ours. Had a guy buy something in NV and got charged 6% NV tax, so I collected the difference only (4%).

I’m requiring a copy of the invoice showing tax paid to avoid paying the Use Tax, that I keep with the 4473 in case I get audited.

But isn't that really both the same thing. You have a retailer who is out of state, whether online or brick and mortar, who is collecting sales tax. Whether they are collecting their local sales tax or WA sales tax, it is still tax being paid during purchase. In the end, the FFL in WA is responsible for collecting sales tax where needed and/or prove that sales tax was collected by the retailer. So far, for the handful of zip codes that I know the tax rate for, Brownells has been correct.

How do you enter that in the DOR system?

It's not retailing, you'd be charged BO tax if it was entered that way. Use tax maybe? I thought that was for the company's use tax

I guess depending how it's entered you could refund the over-collection of sales tax and get a credit from the state. As a contractor I have to adjust sales tax when I buy something in Tacoma and take it to a job out on the peninsula that has a lower rate.

Just asking out of curiosity. There are a ton of line items on the DOR website and I only use a handful

Not exactly because in the instance I referenced, the NV retailer is not remitting the tax to WA, WA is just allowing the purchaser to claim the tax already paid as a credit.  This also predates the recent WA sales tax issue.

In the Brownell's case, they are now auditable by the DoR as a tax-collecting agent of the state.  IF Brownell's gets audited, they'll catch the error and make Brownell's pay the tax discrepancy.  Brownell's may or may not try to collect the tax from the buyer at that point.  If I've collected the shortage from the buyer, then the state will have "double dipped" the tax.  If Brownell's charges the buyer the tax difference because of the audit, and I've already collected it as shortage via Use Tax, then the customer has paid the tax twice.

The onus is now on Brownell's (or any other out of state retailer) to collect and remit the right tax amount, not the transfer FFL, if they are subject to the DoR rules on tax collection.

it's reported as Use Tax, and you have calculate a "value" that the tax applies too, and it gets broken out between state and local rates.

While I don't doubt the sincerity in the logic being applied, I'm curious if it is your interpretation, or one from a paid counsel/accountant/lawyer, or a DoR publication?

In other words, has the State agreed the onus belongs solely to the initial agent, or is it shared among all agents in the transaction?  Frankly, I don't know how the first agent could ever know what the use-tax rate would be, depending on where the transfer took place, after they shipped it (at brick-and-mortar or gun-show).

Basically the tax is due based on the where the item first goes into service/is received by the end user. I have a reseller permit, as do a lot of people. I don't have to pay tax on materials I use on jobsites.  I still have to charge sales tax to the customer, unless I'm working for a builder that also has a reseller permit. In that case I have to get a copy of his permit and he charges the end user the sales tax in the final bill. I report that business as wholesaling.

As I said before, sometimes I buy something in Tacoma (paying tax on it) and use it on a job out in the sticks.  I charge the end customer the sales tax rate at the job location. The next month when I report my taxes I have to remit the amount I collected from the customer but I get a credit for the tax paid in Tacoma.

The sales/use tax is only collected once, not at every transaction along the way

Clear as mud?

To clarify, you are correct, it's not collected and re-collected along the way, but if out-of-state wholeseller charges buyer's zip-code use-tax rate (eg, 5%), then the transfer occurs in another zip-code that charges (eg, 6%), then I assume the FFL is supposed to collect the 1% difference....  But scollins is reporting that the wholeseller should have to figure that out.

The issue is that the online retailer is probably going to charge tax based upon your billing zip code and not the zip code of the local shop, which may or may not have a higher tax rate. For firearms, they should really be calculating tax based upon the FFL zip code instead of the billing Zip.

Welcome to "Why the tax laws of Washington are Effed up 101"

If you buy something in a store they charge you sales tax based on the location of the store, not your home

If I provide materials for your home I charge you sales tax based on the location of your home, not the place of purchase

If you buy a million dollar yacht from out of state there is a huge financial advantage in having it delivered to Anacortes rather than Seattle

Yeah it sucks.  I'm a dealer as well and hate having to collect it for the vultures in Olympia.  Some month the tax collection for transfer is higher then my sales taxes?  Shows you how much they are raking in.  Dealers should not collect tax if it has been collected already regardless if its collected by the seller for WA or for there home state.

Yeah it sucks.  I'm a dealer as well and hate having to collect it for the vultures in Olympia.  Some month the tax collection for transfer is higher then my sales taxes?  Shows you how much they are raking in.  Dealers should not collect tax if it has been collected already regardless if its collected by the seller for WA or for there home state.

I notice some of the bigger online sellers are not collecting the full percentage of tax.  I've seen some charge tax on just the shipping cost, and I know they are doing this to avoid having to collect it and pay it to WA.  I'm sure they found a way to skirt the new law. Its sucks for me as I have keep my eyes out for this and collect the difference.  In the end, the dealers are the ones responsible and held accountable.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=82.12.035

The actual law, not an imcomplete guide DOR sends out, but the actual law says,

"A credit is allowed against the taxes imposed by this chapter upon the use in this state of tangible personal property, extended warranty, digital good, digital code, digital automated service, or services defined as a retail sale in RCW 82.04.050 (2) (a) or (g) or (6)(c), in the amount that the present user thereof or his or her bailor or donor has paid a legally imposed retail sales or use tax with respect to such property, extended warranty, digital good, digital code, digital automated service, or service defined as a retail sale in RCW 82.04.050 (2) (a) or (g) or (6)(c) to any other state, possession, territory, or commonwealth of the United States, any political subdivision thereof, the District of Columbia, and any foreign country or political subdivision thereof."

This has been this way for a couple decades and is not specific to firearms. The state just realized in 2009ish that guns coming in have to go through dealers so they could force FFLs to collect the tax. Prior to this all that could be enforced was the tax on vehicles since they have to be registered. But it still applies to everything. If you buy a TV in a state that only has a sales tax of 3% you owe the rest rest of the use tax (equivalent to your local sales tax) to the state.
People keep acting as if the use tax is something new because it's something that couldn't be enforced so they didn't know it existed.

Any dealer that is violating the law by charging the full tax again, even if it has been paid needs to look up the laws that they operate under.

So here we go again WA?

This same sort of issue in fall 99' or so when WA first decided FFL's needed to be State tax enforcement. The guidance to FFl's was sorta vague and a lot of us were pissed when we suddenly had to fork out extra money. I fired my LGS over it.

After sifting through that shit, I gotta agree. The glaring problem now is tax being collected along the way rather than the onus being placed where it is MOST appropriate, and, IMHO, that's at the final point of sale and transfer in the transaction.

No, it's NOT fair to FFL's, but neither is it in OUR interest to have the State to attempt to legislate what businesses outside the state are doing.

Applying this in the greater spectrum of retailing, it's customary to finalize the bill on your way out of the door, the same should apply here, treating the process of ordering and delivery as non-factors, and focus on the place where the money is spent. If it's your living room or on your mobile device/laptop/whatever in the next county, then your permanent residence ZIP code determines the tax rates, as theoretically, that is where your bank accounts are/should be tied to, and assumedly it is the physical location referred to when asked for a physical address.

But what about if you now make a purchase in Athol ID? Pay your Athol Tax, WA don't get none. Same item online, AHA! This to me is now Fed level shit. Just how is the State of WA to know you spent money online in another state, had the product delivered, and are now a tax scofflaw? Can't, really. The state loves FFL's, they get a hostage in the deal, same for motor vehicles on a lot.(Oh, something shiny!- Notice how both have registration numbers?) Back to the point, the state now has to rely on someone, in fact, several someones to push the money forward now. That means Fed, and that never really works for "us".

I know a guy who knows intra-state commerce, I thunk….
@dawgfish @dogfish

@Ranger689

I'm pretty sure Andy would have some intelligent input, I've got nothing that hasn't been already covered

The previous commenters have covered it pretty well.

Well then!