New York Seeks More Than $800 Million From UPS Over Cigarettes

[El Presidente]

Let us know how this one pans out in court.

 

New York Seeks More Than $800 Million From UPS Over Cigarettes

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/ups-tells-judge-little-cigars-at-heart-of-untaxed-smoke-case

[hughness]

Sounds pretty serious but then these cases may drag forever


It is what it is - hugh

[PigFish]

I find it interesting how states create absurd laws and then expect private industry to police them. Is it any wonder why business leave certain states, or the US as a whole?

-Piggy

[El Presidente]

3 hours ago, PigFish said:

I find it interesting how states create absurd laws and then expect private industry to police them. Is it any wonder why business leave certain states, or the US as a whole?

-Piggy

Bingo!

50 States..50 rules?

One country, one rule. It shouldn't be that hard. 

[scap99]

56 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

Bingo!

50 States..50 rules?

One country, one rule. It shouldn't be that hard. 

One country, one rule would have us all living under the oppressive progressive movement, instead of pockets of relative freedom.

[El Presidente]

2 minutes ago, scap99 said:

One country, one rule would have us all living under the oppressive progressive movement, instead of pockets of relative freedom.

So business needs to have (potentially) 50 policies/practices?

Tell them to shove it where the sun don't shine. 

[wabashcr]

UPS made a legally binding agreement with the attorney general's office that they wouldn't ship cigarettes to individuals or unauthorized businesses.  If they didn't hold up their end of the deal, they'll have to pay the price.  

The bigger issue to me here is that this illustrates how some of the tobacco companies are trying to skirt anti-tobacco legislation by dumping these "little cigars" on the market.  They've found loopholes to sell what are essentially cigarettes, but by calling them cigars, they aren't subjected to the same scrutiny.  Well, obviously the authorities are going to close those loopholes, and the easiest way to do that is by amending cigarette restrictions to include cigars.  Of course at that point, they are in no mood to hear about the differences between gas station "cigars" and premium cigars.  

[scap99]

41 minutes ago, El Presidente said:

So business needs to have (potentially) 50 policies/practices?

Tell them to shove it where the sun don't shine. 

Our country is run by those that live like bees.  The dense urban population passes feel good laws that they wish would affect the whole country.  Luckily, these laws don't necessarily cross state lines.  Just like a one world government would suck, it would suck if one entity made the rules for all 50 states.

[JustinThyme]

This is more about NY greed than anything else. New Yorkers have plenty of places to go and buy untaxed cigarettes LEGALLY! This business as well as Petro is a major source of income for all 8 of the reservations located throughout that state. If you are part of the tribe smokes and gas costs next to nothing. They keep  the prices of the two just far enough under what taxed items costs for those coming there specifically to buy tobacco to keep them coming back. Cheaper than any online source. The Indian tribes make a KILLING and its 100% legal. First thing you come to when entering tribal land? You guess it! A Gas station with a HUGE smoke shop with tens of thousands of cartons in untaxed smokes.

[Philc2001]

Where there is money involved, there will always be those that find a way to make more or pay less, while taxing authorities try to take more and give nothing in return. This is a case about greed all the way around. 

[srbbones]

Lawyers always win.  The rest of:  Schmucks?

[CigarAsh]

3 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Bingo!

50 States..50 rules?

One country, one rule. It shouldn't be that hard. 

Couldn't disagree with you more on this one Prez.   Allowing states to have autonomy to make their own laws and on down to the local level makes government more responsive to the people. Federal control of everything removes politicians from the local consequences of their actions. The closer gov't and law making is to the people the better it works (if that's even possible!). Does this result in some weird laws and differences among the states? Sure - but it's part of the American republic experience. 

[topdiesel]

8 minutes ago, CigarAsh said:

Couldn't disagree with you more on this one Prez.   Allowing states to have autonomy to make their own laws and on down to the local level makes government more responsive to the people. Federal control of everything removes politicians from the local consequences of their actions. The closer gov't and law making is to the people the better it works (if that's even possible!). Does this result in some weird laws and differences among the states? Sure - but it's part of the American republic experience. 

Couldn't agree more.  I have lived in many states and find that they all have different rules.  This is beneficial since the local population gets to shape their local conditions.  It would suck if someone in DC decided all of our local issues.  It does seem like that is happening more and more, and I don't like it.  Just like I try to support local businesses, I support local governance.

[PigFish]

4 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Bingo!

50 States..50 rules?

One country, one rule. It shouldn't be that hard. 

Oh, a number of points here.

First mate, a sovereign people need to be protected from an oppressive government at any level. Yet, it would appear anyway that oppression exists at every level.

The point of my post was not that we need further federal authority, except that the State of NY, while taxing is within their state constitutions rights, they are abusing the people that live there and beyond. While I don't often agree with @wabashcr, he makes a legitimate point about contracts and the breech thereof. Yet, it is interesting how some of these contracts are entered into, one with government as a 'partner.' How is a shipper going to "know" what is contained in a package? What right does one state have to tell those of another state where they can ship?

We have a system known as federalism. That does not mean overriding federal power. It means a division of powers and enumerated powers, where the rest remain in the hands of the individuals and the states. Of course it was understood, that those that created laws at the time of the formations of the state and federal constitutions, that the ultimate goal of government was to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE. Not protect people! There appear to be many that don't understand individual liberty, state sovereignty and natural rights!

I have to wonder if in fact this might not be a federal constitutional issue. The Commerce Clause states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign governments and between the states. As this is 'commerce' over the state line, I do believe that in order to tax, NY has unlawfully restricted commerce between the states. You see there was a time when states used 'state' laws to punish other states by taxing imports of products, port fees and other means by which to restrict free trade between the states. This would be state authority overreach and the Federal Constitution protects one state from another. You cannot have a train stopped at each state line, unpacked and then repacked to a train that has a different rail gauge now can you? I do see this as a commerce law issue. While the individual states have the right to tax, they don't have the right to tax other states or the people in them. They can only tax their own! Therefore if the state citizenry breaks the state laws, that is an issue with the state and the citizenry, not the shipper!

I can imagine that the shipping companies are often 'leveraged' into contracts with the states unfairly. This same leverage is used against industry at all levels in this country. If banks were not 'leveraged' by the federal government to make loans to individuals that would not pass the muster of 'bank underwritten' loans, we could have likely saved ourself the misery of a real estate meltdown a few years back. This narrative has always been focused on 'greedy banks.' Yet you only need to have been in the mortgage business to understand that mortgage underwriting largely stems from GSE, or government controlled entities to understand that underwriting flaws, and the problems that they cause are not originated at the bank level any more. They are governed by the secondary market, which is controlled by government!

I wonder if the US Postal service is liable for me getting my cigars? I think you might all know where I am going... So oppressive laws will be skirted by the public. They express their contempt for the law by breaking it. So as some of us sit mightily and look, potentially in favor of what the court has done to UPS, are we too not guilty? Is it the shippers fault that we smoke cigars?

The black market is caused by governments. It existed during the prohibition era, now for tobacco, and in places such as Cuba. When you consider oppressive acts, should we not view our own governments in the same light as those in tyrannical countries? I think we should.

Food for thought!

So Rob, I was making a statement about oppressive government, and this is oppression, even though the state of NY has the 'right' to tax. However the populations have a right to purchase over state lines as well! There is no overriding authority that protects the state, but there is one that protects people from them via the commerce clause.

I was not making an argument for an oppressive federal authority. We have enough of that problem as well. This is a case where I do believe that federal authority has a duty to protect those in NY... and those beyond its borders. I see that the state has no right to tell tobacco retailers that they 'cannot' sell into the state, protecting unlawfully those that sell in the state.

My case rests! -Piggy