You would be liable for use tax in your state of residence, although it might be very difficult for the state to enforce the liability.
So far as this tax applies to non-privileged business activities, the ‘use tax’ is not constitutional, for states possess no sovereign power to control its residents as to their activities or arrangements occurring or taking place external to its borders (and frankly have no justifiable business seeking the business or sales records of foreign entities that its residents or visitors are party to)—e.g., imagine the utter lunacy of establishing a “vacation tax” upon residents that seek their fun and relaxation out of state.
The prohibition on taxing "imports" without Congressional approval found in I.10.2 applies only to shipments from a foreign country, not those from other States.
1. This also pertains to establishing treaties, alliances, and entering into agreements or compacts with other states.
2. While, true concerning what are imports and exports, it is indicative that states are not to meddle in the affairs of foreign entities, including other states.
3. This is even further substantiated by the restriction on states from laying tonnage duties for the use of state operated ports.
They have the authority to impose use taxes upon their residents, but it's much easier to require out-of-state sellers to collect sales tax.
No, no they do not. The tax is merely a runaround machination devised by progressive-minded control freaks. In fact its name is very telling, the ‘use tax’ is a tax upon items brought into the state after having been purchased outside of the state by its residents or visitors, so as to effect a “level” selling field for the merchants within the state (regardless if the items purchased are even available intrastate.) This tax is based on the faulty notion that governments are to be operated as for-profit corporations, which must continuously exceed financial projections. However, the sole basis of taxation is to provide revenue to respective government entities for the better good and protection of the whole public (as opposed to specific individuals and groups), not to “level” the field between competing states and the merchants thereof (in fact government is not obliged to shield business ventures of any kind), make the bottom line black, or punish, restrict, or encourage individual choice or behaviors, and the like (e.g., such as excessive taxes on tobacco, firearms, and fuel products.)
But they provide them with a customer base and, according to the courts, the privilege to do business within their respective jurisdictions. And taxation without representation happens all the time -- taxes are imposed on minors, estates, trusts, and corporations, none of whom can vote.
Those examples hardly qualify as taxation without representation as it is meant.
A State cannot discriminate against interstate commerce. Any increased sales tax rate would have to also apply to in-state sales.
State sales taxes are in-state sales as defined by such form of taxation; but sure they could, they would simply color it under a different name or legal theory/justification (just like states can prohibit commerce all together such fluoride removing water filters, mail-order ammunition, large capacity magazines, hooch, etc.), further still, individual states set their own tax rates, so they could work in cooperation with each other depending on the given pros and cons of their geography and commercial atmosphere; similarly to how each county sets their own sales tax rate—which will affect other serious concerns with this form of proposed taxation.
Also, this is a method of double taxation, for the consumer is going to very likely be taxed on the same act by both their state of residence and the state of purchase, and further may have to additionally pay service fees, shipping fees, insurance, etc.
So effectively, conglomerations and monopolies are going to become motivated to setup operations in states with no (or very little) sales taxes, creating a Delaware corporation effect.
