Zero Tolerance Takes On A New Meaning! School Board Officials On Notice.

Open Letter to the Citizens of Gloucester County Virginia,

“For the Common Good."

 “  Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States?"

  How about the Constitution of Virginia?  I am not going to write what is in each section they are available on the internet.

Article 1 Section 2. People the source of power.  This reinforces that these are responsibilities of the people.  Our elected official work for us and the power of the offices are vested in us.  What is a power we have to take back because these officials are not doing their jobs?

Let’s look at the school system and Zero Tolerance.  If we are going to have zero tolerance for our children that have limited life experience, THEY ARE IN SCHOOL TO LEARN NOT TO WORK.  Then maybe we should hold the adults working in the system to the same standards.   Kick out the teachers and guidance counselors for not teaching the children the rules.  You make a mistake you are out “Do not pass go! Do not collect $200 dollars!” (Monopoly “Go to Jail” phrase, Milton Bradley).  I think the middle school should have been repaired and not destroyed; this opinion is shared by others in the county.  Applying zero tolerance to the adults for destroying a functional building the Superintendent of the schools, School Board, and Gloucester Board of Supervisors should be fired!  Maybe we should hold all of the county officials to the same standards as the students with zero tolerance since the Board of Supervisors have allowed the school board to make rules like this.  Is this what should be done? Maybe but that is not the point; the point is our students should not be subjected to a zero tolerance policy.  Why is it harder to fire a bad government employee than to kick a child out of school?  What business do you know that has never made a mistake?  Do businesses fire people for one mistake; I am not talking about breaking the law.

When I was in school students and teachers had guns in their cars, from a morning hunt or going after school; or possible going to a range to shoot.  It was an exception for a student to not have a pocket knife.  Who does not carry a pocket knife today?  Today point your finger like a gun and you are out.

Let our elected representatives know we want reasonable rules, codes, and laws.  If they are going to enforce these kinds of standards on the children then the citizens of the county should expect the same standards to be enforced on the elected officials and the county employees.  Actually, the elected officials and county employees should be held to higher standards since you deal with these regulations daily.

I have high respect for the county employees and this is not meant to criticize them but to show that zero tolerance for our children is over the top.

Sincerely,

Alexander James Jay

P.S.  I am not a lawyer so I am not giving you a legal definition but what these writings mean to me.

Now there is an idea that needs to be followed.  If everyone starts to reverse the zero tolerance policy on the school boards and teachers, you have an argument they can not win.  Together we can stop the insanity plaguing our nation today.

Free MP3 Download.  - KharMa - For No One - is the track for this post.  Our way of saying thanks for spending time with us.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5NJpRCvjyV8S0Z6YklaQXFhWnM/edit?usp=sharing  Download link.

You can copy, distribute, advertise and play this track as long as you:

• Give credit to the artist
• Don't alter, transform or build upon this album
• Don't use this album for commercial purposes

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.

Have a news story? Submit it above.

Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.

Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.

We cover what no one else will.

Related articles

• Fairfax school board considers change to zero tolerance policy
• 100 LAUSD Teachers Fired in Crackdown on Misconduct

Gloucester, VA Peddlers And Itinerant Merchants Facts

We continue to research areas of law as they apply to Gloucester Counties new ordinance 10-26.  We looked up a definition for Vendor in state code but could not find one.  Next best place to look, how the state uses the terminology.  Going through tax laws and tax codes, the state of Virginia uses the term vendor to be a part of the supply chain.  Not as a merchant or peddler though both can act as vendors but when they do, then the term applies, otherwise it does not.  In the text of the image

We looked at Virginia tax laws to get more information here.

Localities in Virginia may impose the BPOL license fee and tax ordinances on businesses that engage in a licensable business within the locality applying the tax. Code of Virginia § 58.1-3703(A). The BPOL tax is not a tax on income, but a tax on the privilege of engaging in business. The taxable amount is based total gross receipts that the business earns within that locality. Code of Virginia § 58.1-3703.1(A)(3)(a).

"Gross receipts" are the total receipt of money or other consideration received by the taxpayer for engaging in a licensed business activity less any statutory exclusions or deductions. Exclusions and deductions from gross receipts are allowed only for those items enumerated in the statute. Code of Virginia §§ 58.1-3703(C); 58.1-3732; 58.1-3732.1; 58.1-3732.2.

In other words, it acts something akin to a prepaid tax when it comes to 58.1-3717.  It's a combination license and flat tax fee rolled into one package.
Here is how Fairfax county applies BPOL;

Business/Professional/Occupational Licenses

• Businesses, professions, trades, and occupations are assessed a license tax based on gross receipts for the prior year, without deductions.
  
  
  • Exclusions are deductions from the definition of gross receipts. Section 4-7.2-1(B) of the Fairfax County Code and Chapter 37 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia lists the only deductions that can be claimed.
    
• Individuals engaged in home occupations and self employed must also file if gross receipts are greater than $10,000.
• Receipts of venture capital or other investment funds are excluded from taxation except commissions and fees.
• Effective January 1, 1998, renewal license applications must be filed and the tax paid by March 1 each year. New licenses must be filed within 75 days from the date the business began in Fairfax County.
  
• If gross receipts are $10,000 or less, there is no fee or license requirement.
  
• For businesses with gross receipts from $10,001 to $50,000, a flat fee of $30 is assessed.
  
• For businesses with gross receipts from $50,001 to $100,000, a flat fee of $50 is assessed.
  
• For businesses with gross receipts of $100,001 or greater, the tax rate is determined by the business classification.
• The County's Business, Professional and Occupational License (BPOL) Ordinance requires an estimate for the first partial and the subsequent first full calendar year of operation. Although the first two years of operation require an estimate of gross receipts (or gross purchases for Wholesale Merchants), in reality the taxpayer is taxed on actual gross receipts since adjustments are made at the end of each tax year during the estimating phase.
  Examples:
  First Year (partial of operation). A business makes an initial gross receipts estimate of $160,000. If the actual gross receipts at the end of the year are $135,000, an adjustment of $25,000 is made. This would be refunded if the business ended at that time or a credit on the next tax year if the business continues. The ultimate tax effectively levied would be on the actual gross receipts of $135,000.
  Second Year (first year completed from January 1 through December 31). The tax basis would be a new gross receipts estimate for the full year. The tax bill would be based on the new gross receipts estimate plus the adjustment (+ or -) of the difference between the initial gross receipts estimate and the actual prior year gross receipts, as described for the first year.
  Third Year (second year completed from January 1 through December 31). (estimate no longer required). The tax bill would be based on the actual prior year gross receipts plus an adjustment (+ or -) of the difference between the prior year new gross receipts estimate and the actual prior year gross receipts.
  For all subsequent calendar years, the BPOL tax is based solely on the prior year actual gross receipts.
• Businesses have the right to request written interpretive ruling from the Director of the Fairfax County Department of Tax Administration. Local audit decisions can be appealed to the Virginia Tax Commissioner. 
• If a business which has paid a license tax permanently ceases to operate, a refund may be obtained for the portion of the tax already paid.
  
• Businesses located in the cities of Fairfax and Falls Church, and the towns of Clifton, Herndon, and Vienna are not subject to County BPOL tax, but should check with those jurisdictions for license tax requirements. Businesses located in the towns of Clifton, Herndon, and Vienna are required to file tangible business property with the County.

Fairfax County Ordinance meeting the same legal status as Gloucester County Ordinance without locking in the state maximum amount of $500.00.  The Fairfax county code reads identical to state law.

"

BPOL Ordinance

Section 4-7.2-2. Persons subject to business licensing.

A. Except as otherwise provided by this Article or by state law, the license taxes or fee imposed by this Article are imposed on every person engaged in any business, profession, trade, occupation or calling which has a taxable situs in the County.

B. Every person shall apply for a license for each business or profession when engaging in a business in the County if (i) the person has a definite place of business in the County; (ii) there is no definite place of business anywhere and the person resides in the County; or (iii) there is no definite place of business in the County but the person operates amusement machines or is classified as an itinerant merchant, peddler, carnival, circus, contractor subject to Va. Code § 58.1-3715, or public service corporation. Itinerant merchants and peddlers shall be subject to licensure pursuant to Chapter 31, Article 2 of the Fairfax County Code."

At present, Gloucester County officials seek to lock in the maximum rate allowed by the state for each merchant that enters into Gloucester, which is $500.00.  That says to anyone even considering doing business in the county, Gloucester County officials are telling everyone that they do not want your business.  If you insist on bringing business here then we are going to make it cost prohibitive for you to even make a profit.  What that also tells every citizen of Gloucester County, your local officials are creating situations where they are directly increasing costs to everyone through poor policies, and also walking away from potential tax revenues as they would rather get the money out of your pocket instead of from businesses.

  Also note, Fairfax county never uses the term, vendor in it's ordinance.  The county attorney in Fairfax obviously knows the laws.  Now let's look at what the State Attorney General says about all of this.  

Attorney General Opinions

Opinion Number:

01-118

Tax Type:	BPOL Tax
Brief Description:	Flat tax Imposed on itinerant merchants and peddlers
Topics:	Constitutional Provisions
Date Issued:	04/12/2002

Mr. Michael M. Collins
County Attorney for Alleghany County

Issue Presented
You ask whether a locality may impose a $500 flat-fee license tax on out-of-state itinerant merchants and peddlers without violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
Response
I regret that I am unable to render an opinion on your question, because such a determination depends on a resolution of questions of fact. Attorneys General traditionally have declined to render official opinions when the request involves a question of fact rather than one of law. I have outlined, however, the state of the law for your consideration in making a factual determination.
Facts
You advise that Alleghany County imposes on every itinerant merchant or peddler subject to a business, professional and occupational license, a $500 flat tax.¹ Such tax is imposed regardless of the in-state or out-of-state status of the itinerant merchant or peddler. You advise that the Alleghany County Code² specifically provides that the terms "peddlers" and "itinerant merchants" shall have the same meaning as prescribed in § 58.1-3717 of theCode of Virginia, which establishes a maximum $500 license tax per year that localities may impose on peddlers and itinerant merchants.³ You relate that Homier Distributing Company, Inc., an itinerant out-of-state merchant, objects to the county’s $500 license tax, claiming that the tax discriminates in favor of local interests, in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
You relate that Homier paid the county’s $500 license tax for a one-day sale held in the county, and that Homier’s gross receipts from the sale were $15,983. Homier argues that a nonitinerant local retailer would have been taxed only $15.98 for the same sale (i.e., a rate of 10 cents per $100 of gross receipts),⁴ while Homier was taxed $500 (i.e., a rate of $3.13 per $100 of gross receipts).
Constitutional Considerations
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States provides that Congress shall have the power "[t]o regulate commerce … among the several states."⁵ The Supreme Court of the United States has long construed the Commerce Clause as a restraint on state and local power.⁶ Modern jurisprudence regarding state and local taxation under the Commerce Clause emerged in the late 1930s, when the Court began to shun formalistic distinctions that lacked substance and to focus on the practical effect of the tax imposed, or its effect despite any distinctions in form.⁷ In prior decisions, the Court merely held that a state or locality could regulate "local," but not "national," commerce.⁸
After 1938, the apportionment of a local tax to cover those activities rationally related to a taxing authority’s power and interest became the central inquiry. The Court announced that, for a tax to be valid under the Commerce Clause, the tax cannot, in effect, reach revenue generated by activities lacking a substantial nexus with the taxing jurisdiction.⁹ In the case of Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady,¹⁰ the Court spelled out this apportionment rule, announcing a four-pronged test to assess the validity of a local tax under the Commerce Clause. The tax must be (1) applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing authority, (2) fairly apportioned, (3) nondiscriminatory to interstate commerce, and (4) fairly related to the services provided by the state or locality.¹¹ The Court also restated the realist approach, noting that the focus is not on the tax statute’s formal language, but rather on its practical effect.¹²
Discussion
Your question relates to the classification of itinerant and fixed merchants for purposes of analysis of Commerce Clause implications. "Conceptually, of course, any notion of discrimination assumes a comparison of substantially similar entities."¹³ In General Motors Corporation v. Tracy, the Court held that regulated and unregulated sellers of natural gas served different markets, so that sales of each may be taxed differently without violating the Commerce Clause.¹⁴ "The dormant Commerce Clause protects markets and participants in markets, not taxpayers as such."¹⁵Fixed and itinerant merchants both sell merchandise at retail from stores or other places of business, the difference between them being the expected period of occupancy in those stores or places of business. Therefore, it is clear that fixed and itinerant merchants serve the same market for the purposes of Commerce Clause analysis.
The fact that a local $500 flat tax burdens all in-state and out-of-state itinerant merchants equally, regardless of where else they travel or where they are based, reflects that the tax does not discriminate against interstate commerce when addressing only the taxation of itinerant merchants. Analysis must, however, be made of both the burdened class and the preferred class. Should itinerant merchants be compared with fixed merchants, it becomes apparent that the fixed merchants’ receiving the more favorable tax rates are located within the locality.
In the case of American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Scheiner,¹⁶ the Court reviewed the Commerce Clause cases involving flat taxes. The Court concluded that a flat tax "has a forbidden impact on interstate commerce because it exerts an inexorable hydraulic pressure on interstate businesses to ply their trade within the State that enacted the measure rather than ‘among the several States.’"¹⁷ The "hydraulic pressure" arises because "[f]lat-rate license taxes, ‘if adopted by many cities and states, bear much more heavily in the aggregate on a firm that sells in many places than on a firm otherwise identical (and, in particular, with the same total quantity of sales) that sells in only one place.’"¹⁸

Indeed, the Court has suggested that a flat tax, which "bears no relationship to the taxpayers’ presence or activities in a State," will invariably fail the fourth prong of the test articulated in Complete Auto Transit.¹⁹ Even before the Complete Auto Transit case, the Court struck down flat taxes when local merchants paid a graduated rate. In the case of West Point Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Opelika, the Court wrote:In our opinion the tax here in question falls squarely within the ban of those cases. This is particularly so in that Opelika places no comparable flat-sum tax on local merchants. Wholesale grocers whose deliveries originate in Opelika, instead of paying $250 annually, are taxed a sum graduated according to their gross receipts. Such an Opelika wholesaler would have to gross the sum of $280,000 in sales in one year before his tax would reach the flat $250 amount imposed on all foreign grocers before they may set foot in the City. The Commerce Clause forbids any such discrimination against the free flow of trade over state boundaries.^[20]
The Court has recognized that a discriminatory tax may be upheld if it "advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives."²¹ An example may be found in the compensatory tax doctrine. "[F]or a tax system to be ‘compensatory,’ the burdens imposed on interstate and intrastate commerce must be equal."²² Another example of a legitimate local purpose is when administrative difficulties make collection of more finely calibrated user charges impracticable.In the case of American Trucking Association v. Scheiner,²³ after noting that the pre-Complete Auto Transit cases injudiciously upheld various flat taxes without regard to their discriminatory consequences for interstate businesses, the Court noted:

Those precedents are still valid, however, in their recognition that the Commerce Clause does not require the States to avoid flat taxes when they are the only practicable means of collecting revenues from users and the use of a more finely gradated [sic] user-fee schedule would pose genuine administrative burdens.^[24]
Moreover, while the Court has struck down flat taxes, with statements such as "when the measure of a tax bears no relationship to the taxpayers’ presence or activities in a State … under the fourth prong of the Complete Auto Transittest … the State is imposing an undue burden on interstate commerce,"²⁵ it has not specifically concluded that the only mode of taxation available to states involves graduated taxes on gross receipts or other activity.There are instances where genuine administrative burdens exist due to the nature of a particular taxpayer’s activities. For instance, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that out-of-state itinerant merchants might be less inclined to report their gross sales after leaving a locality. Similarly, such merchants may be less inclined to register with the State Corporation Commission to do business in the Commonwealth, and might create additional litter or public safety problems. Finally, such merchants might be less likely to register as a dealer and report and pay over sales and local excise taxes, such as meals taxes, and less likely to file income tax returns and satisfy the corresponding liabilities. Any such conclusion, however, must be based upon factual considerations.
Ultimately, any determination regarding whether a flat tax on itinerant merchants offends the Commerce Clause depends on a resolution of questions of fact. This Office traditionally has declined to render official opinions when the request involves a question of fact rather than one of law.²⁶
Conclusion
Accordingly, I am unable render an opinion as to whether a locality may impose a $500 flat fee license tax on out-of-state itinerant merchants and peddlers without violating the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution due to the factual nature of any such determination.
¹Alleghany County, Va., Code § 38-9(2)(i) (1996).
²Id. § 38-2.
³Section 58.1-3717 provides:
"A. For the purpose of license taxation pursuant to § 58.1-3703, any person who shall carry from place to place any goods, wares or merchandise and offer to sell or barter the same, or actually sell or barter the same, shall be deemed to be a peddler.
"B. For the purpose of license taxation pursuant to § 58.1-3703, the term ‘itinerant merchant’ means any person who engages in, does, or transacts any temporary or transient business in any county, city or town and who, for the purpose of carrying on such business, occupies any location for a period of less than one year.
"C. Any tax imposed pursuant to § 58.1-3703 on peddlers and itinerant merchants shall not exceed $500 per year. Dealers in precious metals shall be taxed at rates provided in § 58.1-3706.
"D. This section shall not apply to a peddler at wholesale or to those who sell or offer for sale in person or by their employees ice, wood, charcoal, meats, milk, butter, eggs, poultry, game, vegetables, fruits or other family supplies of a perishable nature or farm products grown or produced by them and not purchased by them for sale. A dairyman who uses upon the streets of any city one or more vehicles may sell and deliver from his vehicles, milk, butter, cream and eggs in such city without procuring a peddler’s license.
"E. The local governing body imposing such tax may by ordinance designate the streets or other public places on or in which all licensed peddlers or itinerant merchants may sell or offer for sale their goods, wares or merchandise."
⁴Alleghany County, Va., Code, supra § 38-9(2)(b).
⁵U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3.
⁶See, e.g., Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824) (ruling that laws of New York State, granting certain individuals exclusive navigational rights of state waters for term of years, violated Commerce Clause by prohibiting vessels involved in interstate commerce from navigating said waters).
⁷See, e.g., Western Live Stock v. Bureau, 303 U.S. 250 (1938) (ruling as to whether state tax received from sale of advertising space by newspaper or magazine publishers imposes unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce).
⁸Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Philadelphia, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299, 316-19 (1852).
⁹See, e.g., Greyhound Lines v. Mealey, 334 U.S. 653, 663 (1948) (holding that state tax on gross receipts from transportation of passengers must be fairly apportioned as to mileage within state; tax on mileage outside state unduly burdens interstate commerce, in violation of Commerce Clause).
¹⁰430 U.S. 274 (1977).
¹¹Id. at 279.
¹²Id.; see also Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S.175, 183 (1995).
¹³General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278, 298 (1997).
¹⁴Id. at 278.
¹⁵Id. at 300.
¹⁶483 U.S. 266 (1987).
¹⁷Id. at 286-87 (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3).
¹⁸Id. at 285 n.20 (quoting Donald H. Regan, The Supreme Court and State Protectionism: Making Sense of the Dormant Commerce Clause, 84 Mich. L. Rev. 1091, 1188 (1986)).
¹⁹See Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. 609, 628-29 (1981).
²⁰354 U.S. 390, 391-92 (1957).
²¹New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269, 278 (1988).
²²Associated Industries of Mo. v. Lohman, 511 U.S. 641, 648 (1994).
²³483 U.S. at 266.
²⁴Id. at 296.
²⁵Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S. at 629.
²⁶See 1991 Op. Va. Att’y Gen. 122, 124, and opinions cited therein.

What we find interesting about all of this is the 4 prong test.  Not only the 4 prong test, but Gloucester County officials were trying to apply these laws and codes to Daffodil merchants.  Many of which do these events more as a hobby than as a real money making venture.  Nearly every merchant would have failed the 4 prong test above that set up at the Daffodil festival from what we see.  We are continuing to look over all of the laws and rules here to help everyone sort out what all of this means and how it applies to you.

Free MP3 download - Fresh Body Shop - Buring Sky - Our way of saying thanks for spending time with us.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5NJpRCvjyV8OG4tTzRlR1dNZXM/edit?usp=sharing

You can copy, distribute, advertise and play this track as long as you:

• Give credit to the artist
• Don't alter, transform or build upon this album
• Don't use this album for commercial purposes

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.

Have a news story? Submit it above.

Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.

Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.

We cover what no one else will.

Related articles

• Study: Virginia a 'brighter star' for small business
• Casual Merchants: Expect Underreporting Notices in the Mail
• Cuccinelli Unveils Economic Growth And Jobs Plan
• The Right Note: Make Virginia Number One

Virginia Constitution And Local Government Concerns For Today

English: 1830 Constitution of Virginia, Page 1 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Open Letter to the Citizens of Gloucester County Virginia,

“For the Common Good.“  Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States?  How about the Constitution of Virginia?

The Virginia Constitution is similar.  Virginia is able to focus within its borders and does not have to consider the defense from the outside because several states banded together to form a union like none in history.  We have a lot to be proud of for the work the founding fathers and mothers did to create this great county.

The Constitution was written by men from all walks of life that wanted us to not live under the rule of an unjust government.  I am not a lawyer so I am not giving you a legal definition but what these writings mean to me.

As we were taught in history Thomas Jefferson thought the original Constitution should contain a Bill of Rights.  It did not happen immediately but it happened.  The Virginia Constitution begins with a Bill of Rights similar to those in the US Constitution.

What is not said and nor taught is these Bills of Rights are the responsibilities of the people.  It was not given to us to sit back and do nothing it is something we have to work for or we will lose.

Article 1 Section 1 is Equality and rights of man. We have to work together for the common good or be torn apart by those that want to treat us unfairly.  We are better together than apart.  Walter Reed, a son of Gloucester Virginia knew this and what he did was for the common good. 

What can we do for the common good relating to Article 1 Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution?  Let your county representative know the things they are doing that are not in accordance with section and that unless they change we will replace them with someone that will for the rules of law and the Virginia Constitution.  What is an example:  The Board of Supervisors have adopted a plan for the Court House Area.  It is not published or available for review, that I am able to find (parts of the proposal has been published on this web site; however there are very limited details).

  From what I have been able to find out it will raise our taxes while the Board of Supervisors try to make our Court House area look like the city centers that are being built on the peninsula.  We do not have the tax base or the need for another imitation European City. The proposal will take away the rights of the property owners.  How is this affecting us besides the higher taxes? The shop owners will have to raise prices to pay to make the changes dictated by the county.  Another area is our school system.  Here we are letting the school system and the county Board of Supervisors know how we feel.  Good job we must keep up the good fight to make things right.  Our pens and our votes are the way to correct what is wrong and they are effective as long as we remember or history. 

Sincerely,

Alexander James Jay

Free Music MP3 Download. - Paul Klason - Back in the day - is the title track for this download.  Our way of saying thanks for spending time with us.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5NJpRCvjyV8cTZIWlc4LVFiUms/edit?usp=sharing

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.

Have a news story? Submit it above.

Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.

Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.

We cover what no one else will.

Related articles

• McDonnell amends transportation bill. Now what?
• Virgina Judge Throws Out Toll Plan for Norfolk Project - Bloomberg
• Challenge to tolls at tunnels goes before judge

Crossroads To Opportunity Or Failure - What Legacy Will We Leave?

We recently sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors that is meant to be read by Ted Wilmot and the Board.  The letter is below.  We can complain about the new ordinance 10-26 all we want but what good is it if we do not try and see if we can assist the county on getting it right and getting something passed that we can all be proud of.  This is a crossroads area where something incredible can happen for everyone in the county or become a major disaster.

This message is meant mostly for Ted Wilmot, however, each of you will be able to benefit from the information contained. This is regarding Gloucester County Ordinance 10-26 just published along with all the state laws that pertain to 58.1-3717. From what I am able to see you are actually shooting yourselves in the foot on numerous levels that are either going to restrict your ability to collect taxes or flood the roadways with gypsies. Both are very possible the way you are presently presenting the new ordinance.

Let me explain as the key is in section C of 58.1-3717. Let's look at this then I will break it down for each of you.

100. Any tax imposed pursuant to § 58.1-3703 on peddlers and itinerant merchants shall not exceed $500 per year. Dealers in precious metals shall be taxed at rates provided in § .

What this means is that in lieu of someone paying taxes on income made, this acts like a pre paid tax. If you take an event like the Daffodil festival and throw all 160 plus vendors under a blanket umbrella $500.00 tax and then exempt yourself from having to pay those taxes, you eliminate your right to collect taxes from all of those vendors. You can not send out follow up forms to collect any taxes, you gave up that right under the umbrella and then didn't even pay yourselves.

Had you collected the $500.00 from someone else, you would collect less than $3.50 per merchant total and again would forfeit the right to send out follow up tax forms. If you try and charge each vendor a $500.00 prepaid tax, you will not have one vendor show up to something like the Daffodil festival. Most of the merchants would be hard pressed to make that in profit for the weekend. You would kill any chance for anyone to earn money.

The taxes we are talking about are taxes on gross sales receipts for sales in this area. What first must be established for 2014 is a proper amount of taxes on gross sales receipts for Gloucester from retail sales in Gloucester County. We are NOT talking about sales taxes required by the state and any additional 4% local prepared food taxes. When you have an event like the Daffodil Festival, you stand to collect much more than $500.00 in gross sales receipt taxes and you are already sending out the form for collecting state sales taxes anyway. You are only adding in a few lines to determine how much each merchant at the event owes after the event for gross sales receipts. (Like 32 cents per $100.00 in gross sales).

That is what needs to first be established in a uniform way. What the percentage of gross sales receipt taxes each merchant would be required to pay. That percentage can change from different types of merchants. Food sales can have either a higher or lower percentage than consumer goods retail sales.

A blanket $500.00 tax would be beneficial if used on a smaller event where it is held for say a weekend and there were only 50 vendors with only say about 7,000 people expected to attend.

A Dillon Rule Violation occurs when you restrict the merchant to 5 days or less. You can limit the event, but not the merchant. If you charge a merchant an advanced fee, that fee is good for the entire year. Another Dillon Rule violation is using the term vendor. It's not used by the state and has a new meaning these days than it once had. Vendor now is part of the supply chain for wholesale purposes, and exempt from the accompanied state laws.

Here is where you have some issues. If you grant a $500.00 tax license fee to someone, you do not have the ability to restrict them. I can then go out on 17 where 3 parking spaces are available, such as by Burger King on 17 and sell ugly oil paintings of Elvis for 11 and a half months and there is nothing you can do about it. You sold me a license to do so. You also have restricted your ability to collect gross sales receipt taxes from my sales. (Thank you). This law allows people to conduct sales as a regular brick and mortar business without having the expense of a brick and mortar overhead. All I have to do is put up a tent each day. (This has both good and bad potentials).

Here is what I see as a solution to the issues presently being worked on. For the 2014 Daffodil Festival, instead of thinking you need to charge each merchant a maximum $500.00 prepaid tax, you can charge each merchant a prepaid fee such as $10.00 per retail merchant and $20.00 per food merchant. No blanket, no follow up on gross sales receipts, no issues and everyone is happy. Chances are very high that you will collect more revenue this way and no one will be upset by it. But you have to set up the tax base structure to do so first.

Limitations. Restricting the amount of days a prepaid tax on a merchant can be done if it is based on a rate that would justify the restriction. Example, I want to sell ugly oil paintings of Elvis for 2 weeks. I have no idea what my sales receipts may be as this is the first time I ever tried this business idea. A $30.00 license tax would not be unreasonable and would clearly define the time limits. That the state laws allow from what I have read. The merchant or in reality peddler, would still owe and be responsible for collecting and paying state taxes, but would not be responsible for gross receipts sales taxes.

Look again at the statement in C, it says. Maximum tax that an itinerant merchant can be charged is $500.00. It does not say we recommend you charge each itinerant merchant the maximum license tax of $500.00. The state is NOT looking to hurt businesses. It's not in anyone's best interest to make doing business in the state near impossible. You do that you have no tax base left and county employees all become unpaid volunteers. Will you show up for work tomorrow if you know that you are now not getting paid?

Again, you shoot yourselves in the foot by exempting non profit organizations that bring in for profit merchants into a sales event. It's not the non profit that is hurt by the taxes. The non profit remains a non profit no matter what and nothing has to be added into 10-26 over it. You are leaving much needed tax revenue on the table by creating a blanket that removes your ability to collect gross revenue sales receipt taxes from the merchants.

If you want to help the non profits, then you determine a correct blanket that they can prepay and then they can add in those fees into the setup space charged each merchant. Then the merchant isn't responsible for taxes on gross sales receipts. Otherwise, go for the gross sales receipts taxes owed.

These laws were designed to make life easier for both local governments as well as businesses. Not restrict them and make everything harder and more expensive. It has the ability to increase the tax revenue base. More events mean more money for the county. Understand?

Here is where I think everyone gets confused. This was a dual purpose law that addressed a number of issues in the past. Going to the old door to door rug sucker salesperson, counties were not able to collect proper gross receipt sales taxes on retailers that entered into various counties. People were also fed up with door to door salespeople. This law initially allowed localities to create an assessment value on door to door companies which created an accounting nightmare for all of them. They were all forced to discontinue door to door sales because they then had to break up total sales and account for sales in each county and pay each county it's share of gross sales receipts earned in that locality. It became cost prohibitive.

You can't get rid of these laws or the door to door salespeople come back. You can structure new uses for the laws to help localities however. Event planning is perfect here. You have a tool to help you promote more events, hence increase tax revenues, not destroy the potential. Virginia is considered business friendly, not anti business. Now the confusion should be cleared up.

What you have here are tools if used properly become a wonderful new friend. Use them the wrong way and you have a nightmare where everyone loses. Anyone want to buy an ugly oil painting of Elvis? I can't seem to unload this stock anywhere.

The job an attorney does well is create ambiguous meaning to words. That's what all the college training is really about. I spent hours and hours going over these laws and was able to create a real nasty monster over it all. I was being ambiguous. I had to step back and look at the entire picture as a whole to see what it really meant. Now I am actually excited over all the possibilities, not threatened by them. I realized that it's not ambiguous after all. While I was being ambiguous, I saw the threat that anyone in a sales position can fall under these laws and an abusive ordinance could make criminals out of ordinary working people. And that is a reality. This is a great example of why our country is in such a mess and why government continues to grow and not shrink.

Ambiguity has many nasty potentials. What the county actually has here is what I would imagine anyone in government got into the job for to begin with. Something very exciting and not threatening. Re work the ordinance with the proper groundwork laid first and you have one of the most incredible tools at your fingertips that you can be proud to scream out to everyone about.

You can actually lay the groundwork for alternative forms of business to incubate from. Test the grounds at a low cost. This is an opportunity for Gloucester to take a very serious statewide lead on and change the nation. I would hazard a guess that most localities have no clue how these laws really work or should be applied. Step up and show them. What legacy would you leave behind? One where you worked against business that destroyed your tax base? Or one that you built a mountain of cash from because you saw the right opportunity for everyone to win and structured the right framework for that to happen? I already know where you can increase your revenues right away from structuring the ordinance properly, but will not divulge such until I see it done and at reasonable rates.

As far as 58.1-3717 actually applying to event planning, it has nothing to do with it. An event can be held that has no merchants and no admittance fees or financial collections this licensing tax would in no way apply. But I would imagine you all understand that. Entertainment events held to bring people into a particular store or area is very beneficial and raises gross sales receipts. It should be encouraged. It should also be planned properly for the intended purpose. Street entertainers should also be encouraged. Imagine having people sitting around playing guitars in the courthouse circle. It's like a free concert. It attracts people. If people throw money in their cases, look the other way.

Allow local merchants to set up tables at the courthouse circle area to sell foods and drinks at local concerts. If it works, charge them a small fee in the future for the space and it allows people to get to know the local merchants. Everyone wins. More events, more opportunities more revenues. Don't wait for opportunities, make them. Not everything will work. Or it may work some days and fail in others. You have no idea until you try.

Our Update Not Sent To The County.

  I once again read the newspaper article on how this all came about.  It was brought about by the commissioner of revenue, Kevin Wilson.  Mr Wilson did not read 58.1-3717 properly and did not further read 58.1-3703 afterwards that explains all of this.  I'm not blaming or faulting anyone.  I spent hours reading and re reading all the laws.  The second key was in 58.1-3703 that confirmed the gross sales receipts tax collection mentioned above.  These laws are tricky and not easy to understand.  On the one hand, Mr Wilson was not wrong about the merchants should prove they are legally entitled to do business in the state of Virginia, but that should have been in the application for reserving space ahead of time.  The $500.00 fee was way off though.  The reason it was never done in the past?  It was better to collect the revenue on the gross sales receipts.  It's one or the other.  Not both.

  I had a great teacher growing up.  This guy sat the entire class down and he took out a book of matches.  He said, I know you all know how to light a match, and we did, but pretend I am an alien from another world and explain to me how to light a match.  We could not do it.  Every step we told him to take, he took like an idiot alien.  It was amazing.  When you are looking at law, you have to try and get into the head of the person who wrote it to try and figure out what they were really trying to communicate because many times it's like trying to explain to aliens how to light a match.  You can show them, but if you were texting them, they would never get it.  So you dig for keys.  Oftentimes, your education gets right in your way.  It's right in front of you but if your mind is not in the right frame, you miss it over and over and over again.

  We hope this helps county officials to get everything straight.  Again, it's one thing to complain, it's another to get involved and help out when it's needed.  Before we asked them what legacy they wanted to leave, we asked that of ourselves.  I am continuing to look into all the laws surrounding this matter as this is a new area for me.  I am not an attorney by any means but I am capable of reading and understanding law in many areas.  There are some very complex laws here that need further work.  

Free MP3 download.  Convey - View From Above.  Alternative Pop Song.  Our way of saying thanks for spending time with us.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5NJpRCvjyV8Qi1iR3N2cmhSN3M/edit?usp=sharing

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.

Have a news story? Submit it above.

Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.

Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.

We cover what no one else will.

Related articles

• At the Nantucket Daffodil Festival!
• Hang Out With FoxCT At The Meriden Daffodil Festival
• A Dizzying of Daffodils
• All Dressed Up for The Daff Festival In Historical Gloucester
• Internet sales tax bill passes Senate, awaits House approval [GigaOM]
• The Internet Sales Tax - Bad for Small Businesses