XPost: phl.transportation, phl.media   
   From: nospam@verizon.net   
      
   On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:16:32 -0400, Exile on Market Street   
    wrote:   
      
   >Gary J. English wrote:   
   (snipped for brevity and non-relevence)   
   >   
   >> With respect to the current 7-percent (6%-state/1%-county), my intent is to   
   >> restore uniformity, Art. 8, Sec. 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.  To do   
   so,   
   >> the local sales tax in both Philadelphia and Allegheny County's would have   
   >> to be eliminated.   
   >   
   >Hate to inform you, but you won't make much headway arguing against a   
   >county sales tax surcharge on the grounds of Article 8, Section 1.   
   >   
   >You overlook a key phrase in that clause:   
   >   
   >"...within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax..."   
      
   No, I didn't overlook that "key" phrase and you are taking a segment of the   
   sentence out of context which reads:   
      
   	All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects   
   	within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax   
   	and shall be levied and collected under general laws.   
      
   Does the sentence address the class of subjects prior to territory?   
      
   Are you aware/understand about the Pennsylvania County Code?   
      
   Do you understand what "class of subjects" are?   
      
   Where/what is the taxing authority and where are their territorial limits?   
      
   Do you understand "situs" and it's non-relevance to county code classification   
   as   
   a means to collect a sales tax?   
      
   What is the definition of "uniform"?   
      
   Have you read H.B. 209 of 1991 or H.B. 659 of 1993?   
      
   >> A ruling of constitutional would invoke a mandamus action, forcing the   
   Dept. Of   
   >> Revenue to collect unpaid taxes.  Members of the Legislature from both   
   >> Philadelphia and Allegheny County would have to pay back-taxes, compounded   
   >> interest and penalty dating back to 1991 and 1994 respectively.  That ruling   
   >> would create some dire consequences.   
   >   
   >Huh?  Don't members of the legislature already pay sales taxes in the   
   >jurisdictions where they shop?   
      
   Now you are referring to the "situs" of sale and not "class of subjects".    
   Below,   
   the "use" of their purchases will be broached.   
      
   >AFAIK, they are not exempt.   
      
   You are absolutely correct, Legislators are not exempt.  That doe not mean that   
   the Legislators have paid their tax liability either.......   
      
   >Again,   
   >since *the tax paid depends on the jurisdiction -- and civil   
   >subdivisions of the state may levy any taxes state laws permit* -- I   
   >don't see where a liability is incurred.   
      
   If you don't see where the liability occurred, then you must not have read the   
   original brief I've cited.   
      
   Try taking a look at the Legislator's campaign expenses.  Example: Fumo,   
   Perzel,   
   et al puchase campaign signs or any other taxable item outside of Philadelphia.   
   The "USE" of these campaign instruments (signs, buttons, flyers, et al.) will   
   be   
   in the Legislative District they are seeking election.  Is that not   
   Philadelphia   
   County?  Therefore, these items will be subject to the local sales & use tax.   
      
   The retailer at the point of sale outside the taxable county is not required by   
   law to collect the local sales tax for a taxable county.  However, the liablity   
   still remains with the purchaser.   
      
   If Fumo, Perzel, et al. had paid the tax liability, there would be an   
   expenditure   
   to the Department of Revenue listed on the campaign expense reports that show   
   that   
   the tax consequence was paid.  NO SUCH EXPENDITURES ARE LISTED.   
      
   >Even if, as I suspect forms the basis of your argument, these taxes   
   >exist only because they were authorized by the state legislature.   
      
   That still doesn't mean that the Legislation is Constitutional, the tax is   
   uniformly applied or does it imply that Legislators are not   
      
   Rather than debating this in the newsgroup, I suggest that you take the time to   
   read the original brief on line at voicepac.org   
      
   >Got news? Got events? Got stories? Send 'em to current@pobox.upenn.edu   
      
   Yesterday (10/18/03) I mailed my response to the Commonwealth's preliminary   
   objections.  If you would like to be the first to have such a copy and pay for   
   this printing, I would certainly forward on a copy to you..  You would get a   
   better understanding and might even consider it for publication..........   
      
   Regards,   
      
   Gary J. English   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)