PDA

View Full Version : FFL Transfer Fees


Riflegear
12-20-2011, 4:18 PM
Effective January 1, 2012, FFL Transfer Fees will be as follows:

Transfers are $75 + $25 DROS Fee.
Sales Tax must be collected for all guns transferred.
Guns shipped in must be accompanied by an invoice or the transaction cannot be completed.
Transfer fees are $75 PER GUN. DROS fees will only apply where applicable but assume you will need to pay a DROS fee for every longgun transaction (whether single or multiple) and another DROS for every handgun transferred.

EXAMPLE: You purchase 2 long guns and 2 handguns from an online seller. The fee will be $75+$75+$25 DROS for the two long guns, and an additional $75+$25+75+$25 for the two hand guns. The total would be $375 plus the sales tax for the invoiced value of all four guns.

If you have any questions feel free to drop us a line. PPT Fees will remain the same (currently at $35 including DROS Fees). Sales tax is not collected for Private Party Transfers.

LBDamned
12-21-2011, 7:57 AM
B-U-M-M-E-R

proclone1
12-21-2011, 9:46 AM
But Riflegear aren't selling goods, they are selling a service (the transfer), hence the $75+DROS fee. Is the BoE actually enforcing you guys to collect sales tax when you aren't selling customers the actual items?

I generally assume that all dutiful CA comrades are happily declaring Use Tax on their Form 540.

BONECUTTER
12-21-2011, 3:38 PM
But Riflegear aren't selling goods, they are selling a service (the transfer), hence the $75+DROS fee. Is the BoE actually enforcing you guys to collect sales tax when you aren't selling customers the actual items?

I generally assume that all dutiful CA comrades are happily declaring Use Tax on their Form 540.

See this post about the BOE letters sent to all FFL's in CA.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=497496

proclone1
12-21-2011, 4:12 PM
See this post about the BOE letters sent to all FFL's in CA.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=497496

Ahhhh, very informative. I had a feeling this must have been it. Thanks for posting this link!

Riflegear should print out that letter (I'm sure they got one) ready for customers who might balk about being charged the sales tax. Or just tell the arguing customer to get lost lol.

Because let's say someone orders a $3,000 Les Baer 1911 off gunbroker and has it shipped to RG, suddenly they're going to be owing $332.50 on top of it ($75 trsfr fee, $25 DROS, and $232.50 tax [7.75% on the $3,000 invoice value]).

That the BOE is advising that dealers should charge tax on S&H is ridiculous, not sure how they're justifying that.

shark92651
12-21-2011, 6:44 PM
Yeah, basically there is a lot more work for us now in order to perform transfers as we have to calculate and collect sales tax, and the documentation to back up it up, and make sales tax payments for transfer guns which we are not making a sale on. This is why we are increasing our transfer fee by another $25. The BOE, through the DOJ, sent letters about collecting sales tax to every dealer in the state and we are not going to put ourselves at risk of the bad end of a BOE audit over transfer guns. Please refer to the thread posted above for all the nitty gritty details and discussion.

CSACANNONEER
12-21-2011, 6:50 PM
Just a suggestion but, you might want to revise your policy to say that you will collect the tax unless the invoice shows that Ca sales tax has already been paid. It might prevent some confusion.

PlumDrumnGun
12-21-2011, 9:27 PM
I was just going to ask that - what if you already paid tax to the seller...?

Speedpower
12-21-2011, 9:29 PM
I would like to know too.

shark92651
12-21-2011, 9:42 PM
If the invoice shows that the seller already paid CA sales tax we are not going to collect it again and we will just make a copy of the paperwork for our records. From most of our experience though, out-of-state vendors do not collect CA sales tax. I think it only happens when the retailer has a California location, like the deal the state of CA worked out with Amazon. I have a feeling this whole internet sales tax "loophole" is going to be addressed at the federal level at some point.