Mon May 5, 2008 11:42AM EDT
See Comments (9)
Amazon.com fired the latest volley in the war against states (in this case, New York) who want to collect sales taxes for purchases made over the Internet and shipped across state lines. This week it's suing New York over a new law that says it and other e-tailers have to collect state sales taxes for sales made to NY residents, even though Amazon.com is based in Washington. New NY Governor David Paterson signed the rule into law last week.
Such a fight has been bubbling up for years. Last November, New York's then-Governor Eliot Spitzer first floated a plan to collect sales taxes on web-based purchases, but he quickly pulled the proposal. And technically speaking, many states (at least 20 of them, including New York) already require citizens to declare out of state purchases on their annual tax returns and voluntarily pay taxes on them. The problem is that no one does, so New York's new rule would put the onus on the merchant to collect the tax instead and send it on over to New York.
But that's against the law, says Amazon. 1992's ruling in Quill v. North Dakota held that one state can't impose collection requirements on an out-of-state corporation unless it has a substantial physical presence in that state. That's been the law of the land ever since, and why you'll find some web purchases taxed and some not. New York's argument here is bizarre, saying that thousands of Amazon affiliates (people who sell stuff through Amazon's third-party services or get commissions on sales there) are located in New York, and thus that amounts to a physical presence there. Oh, and NY wants all sales in the state taxed, not just those affiliate sales.
The fight is going to be a bitter one. Amazon is worried that it will lose New York customers if they have to pay tax, and the state is anxious to get its hands on what would raise about $50 million a year for no extra effort. Amazon.com says the law is specifically and prejudicially focused against the company, saying that New York even refers to the new rule as the "Amazon tax."
Whoever wins, there will be major repercussions, as there are dozens of other states lined up behind New York, all eager to get a piece of that sales tax action, too. Stay tuned for more news as this winds its way through the courts.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
What I wonder about is what other states would do after this finishes. If New York wins, other states might want to the tax collected as well. However if Amazon wins, hmm...
i live in taxifornia . . . california has agreements with some states that allows for sales tax collections both ways . . . i tend to buy bigger ticket items from those companies that don't require sales tax from california residents . . . many of those companies are in the new york new jersey areas . . . if i have to pay a reciprocity tax to do business with a company in new york . . . i'll spend my money in another state.
Call me crazy, call me a skeptic, call me a realist, you can even call me a bigot/racist, but the fact of the matter is this sounds like a typical Jew tax. This is the exact reason why they crash planes in the side of buildings in New York. Typical New York trying to make a buck off of everyone else's goods and services. This is exactly what is wrong with our country now. The fact that New York wants to squeeze another tax dollar out of someone, while the rich get richer, the rich want to starve the rest of the world. Duck. It won't be long and I'm sure another plane will be headed that way.
I thought we had freedom of speech? That must be as long as you're not painting New York out to be what it is. A blood sucker!
This TV is what I call a 'shopping cart set' because it's usually sold at warehouse stores like Sam' ...
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 Posted by growlnroar on Mon May 5, 2008 12:42PM EDT Report Abuse
Odd that this is an "issue", because there's precedent. California, I've noticed, for some reason has special tax rates that apply.. Ever notice those infomercials or other TV spots that have an asterik on them? ..Though it's been a while since I've seen those. Not much television nowadays. Heh.