[crazygringo]

I can't find the link to the previous HN thread about this (and Google isn't helping), but someone had posted that the whole point of this tax was to essentially close a loophole where normal software sales are taxed, but a consulting firm who makes a tiny tweak and sells the software under "consulting services" because they "install a solution" for the client, doesn't charge sales tax.

So if that's accurate, it makes perfect sense. Of course, crafting a law that actually targets this and this only is extremely hard to do, and the short notice here is ridiculous.

But if that's the actual motivation behind the law, it's just a case of where do you draw the line between selling products (taxed) and selling services (not taxed)? Of course there's a gray area between them.

[techiferous]

The motivation of the law is to raise revenue for transportation, not close a legal loophole.

[ars]

> but a consulting firm who makes a tiny tweak and sells the software under "consulting services" because they "install a solution" for the client, doesn't charge sales tax.

Then the consulting firm would pay the sales tax when they buy the software (before tweaking it).