For sale: 2 tickets to the Cornell/UNH game, lower level

[Grammar Police]

[Q] I live knowing there will be two less ignorant Cornell fans in attendance.[/Q]

So two Cornell fans who are smarter than Beeej will be there?

[rhovorka]

Chris wrote:

Actually, "beeeej," I am an attorney, and I am very familiar with this area of the law.  Thankfully, after this episode, I was able to sell the tickets to a New Hampshire fan.  Not only was I paid, but I live knowing there will be two less ignorant Cornell fans in attendance.

Good luck to the rest of you.

So that means there are New Hampshire fans willing to be raped by an unreasonable ticket mark-up?  Fine with me.  There are plenty of tickets being exchanged this week at or near face value, and many Cornell fans are finding them.  I don't think that refusing to buy tickets at double the face value makes any of us ignorant.  Glad you could find some idiots from New Hampshire willing to pay your greedy asking price.

Just a question...if internet transactions aren't held to state laws, how come I have to pay state sales tax on in-state internet transactions?  I'm not trying to be insulting here, I really am trying to follow the arguments here with no legal background...

[atb9]

From email conversations, Chris is a decent fellow.  I think he may have just gotten carried away with the $160 bargaining tactic and I got overly excited too by it.

I was in Syracuse this weekend for the win over Texas and man, I can only hope that the Cornell student body can get as excited as the Syracuse student body got for their game.  I'm dying waiting for these games!

[atb9]

[Q]I'd rather see asses in the seats no matter who profits. [/Q]

The double-entendre that beeej tossed out was very entertaining!  And "Grammar Police" stepped in right on queue.  A friend walked in as I was chuckling to myself reading these posts and boy was it embarrassing.  I guess I'm dealing with the embarrassment by sharing the story...sorry   ::nut::

[CUlater]

Individual states can, and have, adopted laws that tax in-state Internet transactions (I believe 45 states so far, but that number may be dated).  But out-of-state transactions, which implicates the Commerce Clause, are subject to federal jurisdiction and as of now, Congress is not clear on what it wants to do.

From a Cal. newspaper article in January:  "States are currently prohibited from collecting taxes on out-of-state purchases because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the variety of tax systems would burden retailers. The coalition, however, led by the National Governor's Association, hopes to make state sales tax systems more consistent in what is taxed and what rate is charged. The coalition then plans to challenge the Supreme Court decision once 10 states have adopted the simplified system.

Congress has imposed a moratorium through Nov. 1 on Internet-only taxes..."

For in-state transactions, the issue is defining when a transaction takes place "in-state".  My understanding is that states are inconsistent on this issue.  One simple approach is if the internet retailer, or an affiliate thereof, has a "bricks-and-mortar" store in the same state that the purchaser lives, then the transaction is deemed to have taken place in that state (regardless of where the goods are actually located).

I haven't looked at the NYS ticket-scalping law, so I am not sure if it addresses transactions over the internet.  If it does not, then eBay is no doubt taking the conservative approach by assuming it applies.

[kingpin248]

Below is the link to the anti-scalping law (Article 25 of the Arts and Cultural Affairs Law) as posted on the New York Assembly's website:

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=7&a=28

The current anti-scalping law will be replaced by a new one on June 1 - one which, if I read it correctly, will limit the maximum resale price to face value + $2, regardless of what the face value is.  It doesn't seem to say anything regarding transactions over the Internet.

Under judicial precedent currently in effect, the federal government can regulate anything under the Commerce Clause. I am not joking. The Supreme Court held, in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, that anything that "affects" interstate commerce is within the province of Congress.

(Edit - source for my claim the the last paragraph: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa446.pdf )



Post Edited (04-07-03 10:21)

[Beeeej]

Matt Carberry wrote:
Under judicial precedent currently in effect, the federal government can regulate anything under the Commerce Clause. I am not joking. The Supreme Court held, in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, that anything that "affects" interstate commerce is within the province of Congress.

At the risk of boring people to tears, that's an overly broad reading of the holding.  The federal government can regulate anything under the Commerce Clause that directly affects interestate commerce, if the regulation doesn't infringe upon the areas of legislative authority that have been delegated to the several states (e.g., criminal law; see U.S. v. Lopez, at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZS.html ).

Beeeej

[CUlater]

Ahh, to again be a law student, flush with the massive amount of new information that seems like the key to the secret kingdom....

In any case, the linked syllabus indicates that the standard is "substantially affects".  And, of course, until recently, the federal government was given an extremely wide berth in deciding whether or not something met that standard.

[marty]

[Q]Author: Chris (---.ipt.aol.com)

Actually, "beeeej," I am an attorney[/Q]

"Well in that case I can't fire you, you quit."

(With apologies to more than two ignorant 60's sitcom writers.)