Tax in California?

[GaryPen]

Since when did Dish start charging tax in CA?

I was just playing around with the new service configurator, and is adding tax to the monthly total. I've never seen that before.

The really odd thing is that it's quite a bit higher than the normal sales tax rate.

Is there a thread about this somewhere on satguys, or some more info somewhere?

 

[finniganps]

They charge sales tax on your leased equipment as required under CA law. If you own the receiver, no sales tax will be charged monthly.

 

[GaryPen]

As I mentioned in my OP, the tax rate appeared to be over the standard sales tax rate. Now, that was if they were taxing the entire monthly amount. If it's only for the equipment, it is well over 10x the standard tax rate. In fact, it is more than the lease charge, itself.

So, something appears to be wrong with their configurator.

 

[GaryPen]

Examples:

With one HD DVR:
HD SOLO DVR RECEIVER: Included
DVR Service: $6.00
TAXES: $1.39

With two HD non-DVR:
HD SOLO RECEIVER: Included
HD Solo Receiver$7.00
TAXES: $1.48

With one HD DVR and one HD non-DVR:
HD SOLO DVR RECEIVER: Included
DVR Service: $6.00
HD Solo Receiver: $7.00
TAXES: $2.04

With two HD DVR:
HD SOLO DVR RECEIVER: Included
DVR Service: $6.00
HD Solo DVR Receiver: $10.00
TAXES: $11.57

How do they arrive at $11.57 as the tax on two leased DVR's?

Also, how do they arrive at a tax figure for a single receiver installation, where there is no lease fee.

I don't understand their formula. Does anybody have a more detailed explanation, including their actual formula? Maybe a member who is also a retailer?

And, what if the person owns some or all of the equipment? They may be charging an add'l receiver fee. But, it is not a lease fee, and therefor should not be taxed, correct?

 

[69sixpackbee]

That's because this &*#@ing state is broke!! They will eek the last drop of blood from your dying carcass if you live here. Thank God I'm bailing in two more years!

Counting the seconds :rant:

 

[GaryPen]

Don't let the door hit you in the ass, as the saying goes.

However, there is obviously something wrong with dish's formula, as opposed to CA's need for money.

 

[Pen15head]

they arrive at 11.57 for the second hd-dvr because they have to collect tax on the 100.00 upgrade charge that is required for the second hd-dvr. only your first bill would have that tax. afterwards on your following bill you would not have such a high tax.

it looks like you are paying 9.3 percent on taxes for your equipment. even though they do not charge you directly on the bill for your first receivers monthly use, it is calculated into the equation. they rate the primary rec lease fee at 9.00. if you are out of commit and have a leased rec and subscribe to a non-qualifying package you would see this fee for your primary leased rec. keep in mind that in california you have to pay taxes on the value of the item even if your charge is waived.

example : single 612 you pay taxes on 13.00. they charge you directly 6.00 for the dvr, but waive the 9.00 first rec activation. 1.38/13= 9.3 percent

with two 211, they collect taxes on 16.00 (they charge you 7.00 and waive the 9.00 primary rec fee) 1.48/16= 9.3 percent

with one 612 and one 211, dish collects taxes on 22.00 (you pay 7.00 rec fee and 6.00 dvr fee, they waive 9.00 primary rec lease fee). 2.04/22= 9.3 percent

with a solo rec they collect 0.84 cents tax (they waive the 9.00 leased rec fee) .84/9 = 9.3 percent

with a 612 and a 722 they collect 11.57 on first bill only for taxes. (100.00 rec upgrade, 6.00 dvr fee, 10.00 solo hd-dvr fee, and they waive the 9.00 primary rec fee) 11.57/125 = 9.3 percent. from there on they collect only 2.33 a month taxes.


and for the record, dish is not charging you these taxes. your state of california is charging these taxes, dish is simply required by law to collect them.

 

[Pen15head]

nothing wrong with dishes formula. it is you. you live in california, and you vote those into office who make the choices on how you are taxed. i learned this lesson at the age of 10 in california. i had a coupon for a free hersheys bar. i had no money at all with me. not even a nickel. so i walked into thriftys, went to the register and did not have the 6 cents the cashier was telling me i had to pay for taxes. i argued, wondering how can you pay tax on nothing. i thought she was just trying to steal 6 cents from me. luckily a customer in line behind me gave the cashier a dime. later on my father explained to me how it worked.

 

[andyin137]

nothing wrong with dishes formula. it is you. you live in california, and you vote those into office who make the choices on how you are taxed. i learned this lesson at the age of 10 in california. i had a coupon for a free hersheys bar. i had no money at all with me. not even a nickel. so i walked into thriftys, went to the register and did not have the 6 cents the cashier was telling me i had to pay for taxes. i argued, wondering how can you pay tax on nothing. i thought she was just trying to steal 6 cents from me. luckily a customer in line behind me gave the cashier a dime. later on my father explained to me how it worked.

In california I have never been charged taxes on food items(except restraunts etc)but never at a store.something was definately wrong unless the law was different way back when,

 

[Pen15head]

it was. this was a long time ago. they had later changed the law to the "no snack tax" and then later to all groceries.

 

[thomas_d92]

i have Directv and pay no tax to California on my bill .I have a leased HD DVR. i live in the central valley area.

 

[DodgerKing]

The instant I clicked on the forum page I saw this thread, and exactly at the same time XM started playing Tax Man by the Beatles.

 

[Koilvr]

In california I have never been charged taxes on food items(except restraunts etc)but never at a store.something was definately wrong unless the law was different way back when,

Candy bar is not food. I have lived in calif all my life till 2yrs ago. Thrifty, safway , albertson's, lucky's, raley's, Von's, Stater Bros, Save Mart, Food 4 Less all charged tax for gum and candy bars.

 

[GaryPen]

<snip>

and for the record, dish is not charging you these taxes. your state of california is charging these taxes, dish is simply required by law to collect them.

No sh**?

nothing wrong with dishes formula. it is you. you live in california, and you vote those into office who make the choices on how you are taxed.

I am familiar with sales tax, being an adult who has bought stuff for a long time. However, on the surface, it certainly appeared there was something wrong with Dish's formula, until you explained the phantom $9 and upgrade fee they were charging, ummm collecting, tax on. It would be nice if THEY would explain what they are basing the taxes on, to avoid such misunderstandings in the future.

i have Directv and pay no tax to California on my bill .I have a leased HD DVR. i live in the central valley area.

Hmmm. Interesting. Either DirecTV is breaking the law by not collecting the sales tax, or Dish is indeed charging sales tax they shouldn't be, and also breaking the law.

Now, what about wholly-owned receivers? If I owned all of the receivers, then Dish shouldn't be collecting sales tax at all. Or, are they required to tax the add'l receiver fees too? Does anybody know the answer?

 

[Jhon69]

When I had DirecTV leased and owned I paid taxes,not alot like a buck something maybe less.Now with Dish I have a 625 leased still pay a buck something.Not enough to have a cow over(maybe a squirrel).

 

[GaryPen]

I like squirrels.

 

[GaryPen]

If you own the receiver, no sales tax will be charged monthly.

For some reason, I never really noticed the latter part of your post. Thanks for the info. That explains why my company pays no tax on our commercial account. All the gear is owned.

However, I'm thinking of going back to the big E* at home, and was wondering what the sitch was.

 

[DishSubLA]

it was. this was a long time ago. they had later changed the law to the "no snack tax" and then later to all groceries.

Actually, there was no tax on ANY food items (that is not consumed on the premises) for decades, but with the economic downturn of the 1990's, they added a "Snack Tax" that was so overwhelmingly confusing (not all true "Snacks" were taxed) and unpopular, it was repealed a short time later. It was considered a flop and a stupid mistake, and the politicians won't go down that road again. They will find other things to tax. We have had no tax on any food items NOT consumed on the premises for almost 20 years now. Please, this is ancient California history.

However, there is great confusion regarding the current if purchased at grocery or supermarket or take out/to go food, it is NOT to be taxed. However, a great many business go ahead and tax even take-out because of confusion and they don't want CA taking legal action upon them for not collecting/paying point-of-sales tax. They aired a really good report on local LA news about how many businesses are confused about the eating in vs. eating out point-of-sales tax. So, yes, a good many people have been incorrectly taxed when paying for take out food.

Starbucks used to make a point of asking if food/drinks were to be consumed on or off of the premises (and had a sign explaining CA food eat in and eat out tax policy) and would only charge tax if you consumed the items in the store. Then, some years ago, they just gave up (like all the other retail food businesses) and started charging tax on ALL orders. Very sad. but CA doesn't seem to be making certain that those who should not be paying point-of-sales tax shouldn't. It works in the state's favor, but still not right.