Janice, it's quite possible that what the states who are passing "Amazon laws" are doing will be found unconstitutional, under the US constitution. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that Amazon would want that clarified rather than just collecting the sales tax for the states. It is the states' responsibility to collect sales tax in their state. It's understandable that they want to transfer that responsibility to Amazon...that's less expensive than collecting it yourself.
I'm empathetic with states who are in dire economic straits, but that doesn't mean that anyone who has money should be forced to assume state responsibilities.
Let's say you live in Nevada. Let's say West Virginia needs money. They send you a tax bill for property tax in West Virginia...where you have no property. It turns out you bought a product from there once...and they've now redefined that as owning property there.
You could pay that bill...or you might choose to fight in in court instead. You might reasonably be concerned that if you pay West Virginia, every other state where you ever bought a product will do the same.
If Associates constituted a nexus under the US constitution, Amazon would collect sales tax in all states where they have them, just as they do in states where they have a traditionally-defined physical presence. It's only when a law is passed that defines advertisers as a physical presence that Amazon takes action. They've chosen to fight it in New York, and that will probably get a national level decision that affects other states.
Janice Hewes - 13 years ago
Amazon is being really stubborn on this. They should be willing to help the "starving" states by paying a sales tax. I bet if they offered to pay a 5% flat rate to every state, every state would jump at the deal. This applies to O.com and the other big internet dealers. If they're not willing to help, they may lose customers.
Janice, it's quite possible that what the states who are passing "Amazon laws" are doing will be found unconstitutional, under the US constitution. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that Amazon would want that clarified rather than just collecting the sales tax for the states. It is the states' responsibility to collect sales tax in their state. It's understandable that they want to transfer that responsibility to Amazon...that's less expensive than collecting it yourself.
I'm empathetic with states who are in dire economic straits, but that doesn't mean that anyone who has money should be forced to assume state responsibilities.
Let's say you live in Nevada. Let's say West Virginia needs money. They send you a tax bill for property tax in West Virginia...where you have no property. It turns out you bought a product from there once...and they've now redefined that as owning property there.
You could pay that bill...or you might choose to fight in in court instead. You might reasonably be concerned that if you pay West Virginia, every other state where you ever bought a product will do the same.
If Associates constituted a nexus under the US constitution, Amazon would collect sales tax in all states where they have them, just as they do in states where they have a traditionally-defined physical presence. It's only when a law is passed that defines advertisers as a physical presence that Amazon takes action. They've chosen to fight it in New York, and that will probably get a national level decision that affects other states.
Amazon is being really stubborn on this. They should be willing to help the "starving" states by paying a sales tax. I bet if they offered to pay a 5% flat rate to every state, every state would jump at the deal. This applies to O.com and the other big internet dealers. If they're not willing to help, they may lose customers.