Larry, great video as always. Thanks so much. I hope to see more of these. Now, as to your question at the end... My first thought was that there may well not be PJ in Washington for "Shoe" had they, instead of employing salesmen, sent catalogs through the US Mail and customers in WA sent in their orders by mail to be processed at Shoe HQ in MO.That would have certainly solved the case at bar since there would be no salesmen to pay unemployment tax on. I am not, however sure, that it would completely eliminate PJ in all instances, since the sending of catalogs to addresses in WA would still be a "continuous and systematic" contact with the state. Admittedly, this course of action may have done Shoe more harm than good since sales likely would suffer, meaning they may well have lost more profits from moving to a catalog model than they saved from their tax avoidance. It also occurs to me to have the salesmen sign employment contracts with Shoe specifying they work for Shoe from another jurisdiction. If the alternate jurisdiction were a lower (or no) tax local for unemployment tax purposes, they may avoid PJ in WA but likely may gain PJ, and tax obligations in the alternative jurisdiction. That outcome would at least allow Shoe to take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity. It also may not work since the salesmen did live in WA and the sales did take place there. Likewise, Shoe may have had a stronger case had the salesmen actually resided in other state(s) and only traveled to WA on occasion to engage in commerce. That solution would at least break the "continuous" part of the "continuous and systematic" language in the USSC ruling. Finally, perhaps the best solution would be to treat the salesmen as independent contractors. They purchase the merchandise from Shoe and resell it to the final customer in each transaction.
Larry, what’s the answer? Because of continuous and systematic contacts existed throughout 4 years with $31k annual income, regardless of representative presence, still bonded under PJ.
I would think that if the salesmen weren't physically present and revenue from the shoes sales were still made in the state of Washington, a simple provision on the shoe purchase order could solve PJ. A clause like "This purchase is eligible for 30 day return with receipt yadda yadda, in the event of arbitration, all legal proceedings will be confined to take place in the state of Missouri or Delaware. Similar to when I order online in a state from a business that has no contacts in my state of residence.
Larry, great video as always. Thanks so much. I hope to see more of these. Now, as to your question at the end...
My first thought was that there may well not be PJ in Washington for "Shoe" had they, instead of employing salesmen, sent catalogs through the US Mail and customers in WA sent in their orders by mail to be processed at Shoe HQ in MO.That would have certainly solved the case at bar since there would be no salesmen to pay unemployment tax on. I am not, however sure, that it would completely eliminate PJ in all instances, since the sending of catalogs to addresses in WA would still be a "continuous and systematic" contact with the state.
Admittedly, this course of action may have done Shoe more harm than good since sales likely would suffer, meaning they may well have lost more profits from moving to a catalog model than they saved from their tax avoidance.
It also occurs to me to have the salesmen sign employment contracts with Shoe specifying they work for Shoe from another jurisdiction. If the alternate jurisdiction were a lower (or no) tax local for unemployment tax purposes, they may avoid PJ in WA but likely may gain PJ, and tax obligations in the alternative jurisdiction. That outcome would at least allow Shoe to take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity. It also may not work since the salesmen did live in WA and the sales did take place there.
Likewise, Shoe may have had a stronger case had the salesmen actually resided in other state(s) and only traveled to WA on occasion to engage in commerce. That solution would at least break the "continuous" part of the "continuous and systematic" language in the USSC ruling.
Finally, perhaps the best solution would be to treat the salesmen as independent contractors. They purchase the merchandise from Shoe and resell it to the final customer in each transaction.
I truly enjoyed your explanation of International show. Your presentation is excellent. Thank you.
Excellent video. Please do videos like this about Criminal Law.
This is great, thank you so much!
Larry, what’s the answer? Because of continuous and systematic contacts existed throughout 4 years with $31k annual income, regardless of representative presence, still bonded under PJ.
I would think that if the salesmen weren't physically present and revenue from the shoes sales were still made in the state of Washington, a simple provision on the shoe purchase order could solve PJ. A clause like "This purchase is eligible for 30 day return with receipt yadda yadda, in the event of arbitration, all legal proceedings will be confined to take place in the state of Missouri or Delaware. Similar to when I order online in a state from a business that has no contacts in my state of residence.