Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

CA tax on unbundled price

eVolcre

eVolcre

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jan 7, 2003
1,979
587
This is ridiculous. Apple.com pricing on the iPhone for CA is now 257! Does ATT do the same thing?

eV
 
Yes the State of CA requires the tax to be collected based on the un-subsidized price. You join two other fine states; MA and RI in this fine distinction. :rolleyes:

Dave
 
Got taxed on the $699 price at 9%

Got to love California!!!

edit: my total tax was: 62.91

edit 2: ordered in my local att store.
 
nszzya said:
ATT taxed me only on the discounted price. I saved $38 x 2! Sweet!
Click to expand...

for what its worth, the tax on ATT is the estimated tax. If you read the fine print it says they won't give you the actual tax amount until they send you the shipping email.
 
that's got to be the STUPIDEST law ever.... if something is "on sale" which techincally the phones are... then we should only pay sales tax on the price paid.... if a car is on sale... i pay on the price i pay... if a $300 dress is on sale for $50... i pay sales tax on the $50... NOT the original $300.... really we do get screwed here in cali.. but it's been that way forever... way back when i got my very first cell phone i remember being ticked about it... .GRRRRRRR :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
 
From my confirmation email:



It's not limited to California...I feel bad for anyone ordering these states :(
 
caligurl said:
that's got to be the STUPIDEST law ever.... if something is "on sale" which techincally the phones are... then we should only pay sales tax on the price paid.... if a car is on sale... i pay on the price i pay... if a $300 dress is on sale for $50... i pay sales tax on the $50... NOT the original $300.... really we do get screwed here in cali.. but it's been that way forever... way back when i got my very first cell phone i remember being ticked about it... .GRRRRRRR :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
Click to expand...

Your logic is flawed

A subsidized phone is not "on sale". The cost of the phone is 699 or whatever but ATT is letting you have it cheaper in exchange for signing a contract. That does not mean the phone is worth subsidized price

A sale, in your examples, is the full, modified, retail price with NO stipulations when buying it

I personally think taxing on the unsubsidized price makes the most sense rather than on the subsidized price

PS: Why is NY not having this the "kicker"? It is a state law.
 
the best part is that we pay the tax on the unbundled phone that is really being purchased at a subsidized price, but then we get to pay taxes on the service that gives us the subsidized price!

How is this state in debt?
 
You know what's annoying? I lived in Boston for the 3G and 3GS launches, and was extremely bitter over this little rule. Then I moved to Los Angeles, and though I had escaped this BS. Nope.

Talk about getting bent over. California can suck it, this is why I stopped using newegg and while i'll nearly always order online.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back