Why charge gross receipts taxes to the customer?
"the state of New Mexico provides guidance in this exact situation. On page 4: Gross receipts DOES NOT include: Example: When the seller passes tax to the buyer, the seller should   separate, or “back out”, that tax from the total income to arrive at   ""Gross Receipts,"" the amount reported in Column D of the CRS-1 Form.   (Please see the example on page 48.) and on page 48: How do I separate (“back out”) gross receipts tax from total gross receipts?  See the following examples of how to separate the gross   receipts tax:  1) To separate (back out) tax from total receipts at the   end of the report period, first subtract deductible and exempt   receipts, and then divide total receipts including the tax for the   report period by one plus the applicable gross receipts tax rate.  For example, if your tax rate is 5.5% and your total receipts    including tax are $1,055.00 with no deductions or exemptions, divide   $1,055.00 by 1.055. The result is your gross receipts excluding tax   (to enter in Column D of the CRS-1 Form) or $1,000.  2) If your tax   rate is 5.5%, and your total gross receipts including tax are   $1,055.00, and included in that figure are $60 in deductions and   another $45 in exemptions:  a) Subtract $105 (the sum of your   deductions and exemptions) from $1,055. The remainder is $950. This   figure still includes the tax you have recovered from your buyers.  b) Divide $950 by 1.055 (1 plus the 5.5% tax rate). The result is   $900.47.  c) In Column D enter the sum of $900.47 plus $60 (the amount   of deductible receipts)*, or $960.47. This figure is your gross   receipts excluding tax." I'll address one part of your question: There are other taxes that companies pay as well, such as income tax, but don't charge to the customer as a fee. So, why are gross receipts taxes charged to the customer? Things like income tax can't be passed on to the consumer in a direct way, because there's no fixed relationship between the amount of the tax and the price of an individual product.  Income tax is paid on taxable income, which will incorporate deductions for the costs the company incurred to do business.  So the final amount of corporate income tax can depend on things unrelated to the price of goods sold, like whether the business decided to repave their parking lot. Gross receipts taxes, by definition, are charged on the total amount of money taken in, so every dollar you spend on an item at the store will be subject to the gross receipts tax, and hence will cost the business 7 cents (or X% where X is the tax rate).  This means there is a direct link between the price you pay for an individual item and the tax they pay on that transaction.  The same is true for sales taxes, which are also often added at the time of sale. Of course, businesses could roll all of these into the posted price as well.  The reason they don't is to get their foot in the door and make the price seem lower: you're more likely to buy something if you see it for the low, low, one-time-only price of $99.99, act now, save big, and then find out you owe an extra $7 at the register than if you saw $107 on the price tag. "It sounds like ""gross receipt tax"" is essentially the same thing most states call ""sales tax"", which is always handled this way -- prices displayed are pre-tax, tax is added when the final price is calculated.  One reason for doing it that way is that most prices result in taxes that involve fractions of pennies, and calculating from the total produces a more accurate result than calculating tax on each item individually. It is theoretically possible to set prices so the numbers come out evenly when tax is added. But that requires that the prices be in fractional cents,  potentially to many decimal places. And in fact in some places it is illegal to display (only) the with-tax price. Otherwise I'm sure some stores and restaurants would be willing to deal with the mils and micros, purely on principle or as a marketing gimmick. Since customers have learned to expect sales tax, it really isn't worth the effort to fight it. The closest I've seen has been occasional ""we'll pay your sales tax"" offers, or statewide sales-tax holidays once a year."
This is basically done to reduce costs and overhead, with agreement of the credit card issuers. When the card is physically present and the charge is low, the burden of keeping the signed receipts and of additional delays at the cash register is not worth the potential risk of fraud. Depending on the location and the specific charge-back history of the business, the limit above which signature is required differs. In one supermarket in the area I live they require signatures only on charges above $50. In another, 10 miles away from the first one, they require signatures on charges above $25. What's funny to me is that the sales tax isn't what gives Amazon better prices.  It's that stores have to include their costs on the price that's shown on the shelf.  Amazon gets to tell you later that there's a shipping fee, Amazon isn't paying a store staff and rental on store front property.  In short Amazon can show the customer a price that is making a decent profit, and still be lower than a retail outlet. First, they don't have an obligation to provide a service for a non-customer.  In theory, the could even refuse this service to account holders if that was their business model, although in practice that would almost surely be too large of a turn-off to be commercially feasible.  Non-account holders aren't paying fees or providing capital to the bank, so the bank really has no incentive or obligation to tie up tellers serving them. Maybe as importantly, they have a legitimate business reason in this case as stated.  The fact that the bill passed whatever test the teller did does not, of course, ensure that the bill is real.  They may (or may not) subject it to additional tests later that might be more conclusive.  Making you have an account helps ensure that, in the event they do test it and it fails, that (a) they know who you are in case the Secret Service wants to find you, and (b) they can recover their losses by debiting your account by the $100.  This isn't foolproof since any number of bad things could still happen (identity theft, closing account before they do additional tests, bill passing later tests, etc.), but it does give them some measure of protection. I'd imagine you want to keep the utility bills around to dispute any historical billing errors or anomalies for perhaps 6 months to a year. Beyond that, you always have the financial records of making the payments -- namely, your bank statements. So what benefit is there in keeping the paper receipts for utility payments around for longer than that? I say shred them, with extreme prejudice -- while wearing black Chuck Norris style. looks like the US tax system needs an overhaul. You cant charge yourself arbitrary amounts to even out your bottom line.  Wel you and I cant, but apparently we just need to make more money to do so....thanks BK for showing me the way!! "Imagine two restaurants. One has prices 15% higher than the other, and the owner pays this 15% to his wait staff in the form of higher wages. The other has lower prices, but the average customer gifts 15% to their waiter. Clearly, in the first restaurant, the 15% the wait staff receives is taxable income. It is traditional salary. What legitimate, economic justification is their for treating the second restaurant any differently? Imagine a grocery store in a small town that offered long-time customers a ""pay nothing"" option but made it clear that they'd be subject to social ostracism and no longer welcome in the store if they didn't gift 85% of the usual cost of the items. The customers would save on sales tax and the grocer would argue that all that money was gifts, not income. Of course this doesn't work. The IRS, and the laws, don't care very much about what you call things. They care about the underlying economic reality. If the money was part of the payment for the services rendered, regardless of how it was delivered, what the parties called it, or whether the obligation to pay was legal or social, it's still a payment for the service and it's still taxable. You would have to be able to argue to the IRS that it really was a gift and wasn't any form of payment for the service received. Otherwise, it's just a scheme to evade taxes." Businesses are only required to keep receipts over $751. However for individuals, I would throw them all in a shoebox and not worry about organizing them.  There's a small chance you'll need to go through them during an audit, and you can worry about reconciling all of them and putting them in order at that point.  Just write 2010 on the box and keep it somewhere easy, and at the end of the year throw it in your basement (or get a scanner, and scan and trash the original). A simple option is to ask your teammates to send you their portion of the tax bill. This option makes everyone's taxes easier, especially since it is very likely that they have already sent in their tax returns. "There is *some* merit to it, in that [federal gross receipts are largely uncorrelated with tax rates](https://i0.wp.com/wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/top-federal-personal-income-tax-rates-tax-receipts-2014-02.png).   There are two somewhat perverse consequences of that fact - First, raising taxes **doesn't** raise revenues, meaning we can't actually pay for ""moar free stuff from Uncle Sam!"" merely by adding an offsetting tax increase.  And second, raising taxes on group-X (ie, the rich) to make them pay their ""fair"" share flat-out *doesn't work*, it's effectively just kicking them in the balls because we grudge them for having more money than we do.  Now, as to whether or not lowering taxes really encourages companies to hire more and pay better - That's an entirely separate issue from whether or not it's revenue neutral from the perspective of the federal government.  Fortunately, we have a recent historical example - Reagan did exactly that, which ushered in a period of corporate greed and erosion of workers' rights not seen since the end of the days of the Robber Barons.  So on the front-end, Trump's not wrong; on the back end, he's trying to sell us unicorn farts." If you want to be safe, only claim deductions for which you have a receipt. This explanation may help. It's always beneficial to have detailed business records.  There are any number of reasons where you'd need to prove both the types of services you've rendered and the payment history - you've already noted audits (for IRS taxes).  Other possibilities: Whether these records need to be original or electronic might be the topic for another question. The other reason you might want to keep receipts is if you do any freelancing or contract work, for your business expenses. You can take a picture of the receipts with your phone, or scan them - you don't have to keep the paper copies. [This is a company's (TradingView.com) customer subscription levels.](https://i.imgur.com/1YIPzOn.gif)  Why do they charge a higher price when customers pay monthly? Monthly increases short term cash flow, right? Why do you think they make prices in such a way that it incentivizes customers to be billed every 2 years? This is a great answer.  It's worth noting that often internal charging is commonly an issue in less clear cut situations like IT departments charging for their services - there is much less of an 'real' value that they could charge for their services to the outside world (as it is an internal service not a physical product that is relatively liquid), yet their chargeable costs gets inflated and can slow down businesses by making projects seem more expensive than they are. I would describe that as one of the most common gripes.  Also I'd argue that your latter scenario where profits are shifted around to reduce tax bills IS well understood by the top of the business, and unlikely to create a situation where divisions are mistakenly regarded as unprofitable (unless the CFO / FD is missing from all the board meetings!). It's a situation that is carefully designed by the business. A) Wrong subreddit. There's probably a legal advice Canada one you should check out.   B) You're a cashier. No one cares about your involvement in taxing products/customers. Unless you're directly pocketing money the most you could be is out of a job.   C) If you're part of a chain store there is a REALLY good chance they have their inventory/sales numbers looked at regularly by extremely qualified people.   Conclusion: Customer was being a dick for no reason.