Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!decwrl!ucbvax!ucdavis!deneb.ucdavis.edu!cck
From: cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Software: why does sales tax apply?
Message-ID: <5050@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
Date: 5 Aug 89 02:52:48 GMT
Sender: uucp@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu
Reply-To: cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Organization: University of California, Davis
Lines: 15

I was installing a piece of software today, and in reading through the
copyright claim, it asserted that the publisher retained ownership and
the user was only ~renting~.  Nevertheless, my colleague was charged
~sales~ tax by the vendor, although in California, ~sales~ tax is not
(as far as I know) collected on ~rent~.

Has anyone tried refusing to pay ~sales~ tax on software where the
publisher claims that no sale is involved?

It's a shame there is no foundation to support legal tests of the
hypocritical claims of software vendors and publishers.

My employer could save a rather large amount of money (6-7 percent of
software costs) if software acquistion by individual faculty was
actually a rent rather than sales situation.