11% excise tax

[Supersapper]

So will this apply to PPT sales as well as sales from retailers?

That's one of the debate questions. How would the retailer / FFL know what price to base the 11% on?

[Eddy's Shooting Sports]

That's one of the debate questions. How would the retailer / FFL know what price to base the 11% on?

There is no debate. You just need to read the guidelines at CDTFA who will be handling collection of the tax.

https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/industry/sellers-of-firearm-and-ammunition-products/industry-topics.htm

Registering a Firearm from a California Private Party Seller

When a California private party seller brings a California Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer a firearm and requests that they find a buyer, the California FFL dealer is considered the consignee and retailer of the firearm and liable for sales tax and FET on the subsequent sale of the firearm.

However, when a California FFL dealer completes the registration paperwork for a California private party who is selling a firearm to a California purchaser and the seller and purchaser have negotiated the terms of sale in advance, and then bring the firearm to the California FFL dealer to meet the statutory requirements for the documentation and registration of the transfer, the California FFL dealer is not considered to be the retailer of the firearm and not be responsible for the sales and use taxes, provided the California FFL dealer does not take title to the firearm at any time during the transaction. The private party seller would be liable for the sales tax unless the transaction qualifies for an exemption. For example, the sale of a firearm between California private parties may be exempt from sales tax if the sale meets the provisions of an exempt occasional sale as provided in Regulation 1595, .

[Supersapper]

There is no debate. You just need to read the guidelines at CDTFA who will be handling collection of the tax.

https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/industry/sellers-of-firearm-and-ammunition-products/industry-topics.htm

Registering a Firearm from a California Private Party Seller

When a California private party seller brings a California Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer a firearm and requests that they find a buyer, the California FFL dealer is considered the consignee and retailer of the firearm and liable for sales tax and FET on the subsequent sale of the firearm.

However, when a California FFL dealer completes the registration paperwork for a California private party who is selling a firearm to a California purchaser and the seller and purchaser have negotiated the terms of sale in advance, and then bring the firearm to the California FFL dealer to meet the statutory requirements for the documentation and registration of the transfer, the California FFL dealer is not considered to be the retailer of the firearm and not be responsible for the sales and use taxes, provided the California FFL dealer does not take title to the firearm at any time during the transaction. The private party seller would be liable for the sales tax unless the transaction qualifies for an exemption. For example, the sale of a firearm between California private parties may be exempt from sales tax if the sale meets the provisions of an exempt occasional sale as provided in Regulation 1595, .

I read it, at least as far as I could. My "debate" still stands albeit slightly modified: Who's going to know at all how much it sold for? Now it seems to say that three is the determining factor for a permit. But my question still stands: Even if I do sell more than three, there is no way for anyone, to know how much I agreed to either give or get for payment.

[The Tiger]

[The Tiger]

That's one of the debate questions. How would the retailer / FFL know what price to base the 11% on?

Sell the gun for $1 and charge a $999 convenience fee. Or run a special, buy a gun case for $999 and get the matching gun for $1.

[Supersapper]

Sell the gun for $1 and charge a $999 convenience fee. Or run a special, buy a gun case for $999 and get the matching gun for $1.

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking like that

[Enthused]

Turner's website has been advertising this for a while now, but I saw Sportsman's website is now reminding buyers of this as well.

sports.png

[Zenderfall]

[morrcarr67]

Yeah, any company that collects sales or use tax for the state of CA is going to have to collect it.

[karsk]

this is what you get for playing ball. never respond to extortionists with anything other than molon labe.

[Eddy's Shooting Sports]

I read it, at least as far as I could. My "debate" still stands albeit slightly modified: Who's going to know at all how much it sold for? Now it seems to say that three is the determining factor for a permit. But my question still stands: Even if I do sell more than three, there is no way for anyone, to know how much I agreed to either give or get for payment.

I'm not sure what your debate is still about.

A retail sale made y an FFL will be taxed at 11% of the gross retail sale price of the firearm. Just like sales tax is collected. Someone mentioned "selling the gun for $1". Well, that's called tax fraud and can put you in prison.

A PPT, when the transaction is negotiated between the buyer and the seller and the FFL is simply accommodating the legal transfer, then from what I have read thus far, there is no applicable excise tax and sales tax need not be paid as it is an "occasional" sale between two private individuals.

[Eddy's Shooting Sports]

Sell the gun for $1 and charge a $999 convenience fee. Or run a special, buy a gun case for $999 and get the matching gun for $1.

That's called tax fraud. Believe me, they've thought of everything. Good luck in an audit if that is how you choose to roll.

[MountainLion]

It disproportionally burdens all people who's incomes are below the median which includes all races. That on its face (IMHO) makes it unconstitutional.

Can you tell me where exactly in the constitution it says that below-median income people need to be protected from high prices? I must have missed it last time I read the constitution.

Seriously: Among gun people, the word "unconstitutional" has changed its meaning, to "I don't like it". Which is a big problem, because there are lots of things that really ARE unconstitutional, but we can no longer find out which they are, because everyone is misusing the word. Which is a long way of saying: Cried wolf one too many times.

[Supersapper]

I'm not sure what your debate is still about.

A retail sale made y an FFL will be taxed at 11% of the gross retail sale price of the firearm. Just like sales tax is collected. Someone mentioned "selling the gun for $1". Well, that's called tax fraud and can put you in prison.

A PPT, when the transaction is negotiated between the buyer and the seller and the FFL is simply accommodating the legal transfer, then from what I have read thus far, there is no applicable excise tax and sales tax need not be paid as it is an "occasional" sale between two private individuals.

I was asking about if I sell more than the amount that is allowed for. Let's say I sell 7 and the number of PPTs allowed for purposes of the no excise tax exemption is 5. That means that 2 of my sold firearms may not be exempt but if I did them via PPT, there is no record of the dollar amount for the transfer. THAT was what I am wondering about.

[Supersapper]

Can you tell me where exactly in the constitution it says that below-median income people need to be protected from high prices? I must have missed it last time I read the constitution.

Seriously: Among gun people, the word "unconstitutional" has changed its meaning, to "I don't like it". Which is a big problem, because there are lots of things that really ARE unconstitutional, but we can no longer find out which they are, because everyone is misusing the word. Which is a long way of saying: Cried wolf one too many times.

MountainLion,
I won't specifically speak for him, but I think he's making a long distance connection to a poll tax, which was specifically ruled unconstitutional because it did in fact work against the poor. A lot of people are tying this to that and from some of the legal beagles I've talked to, there is a possibility it could be fought on those grounds.