IBJNews

Senators stalling Indiana online sales-tax proposal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A push to require Amazon.com and other online-only retailers to start collecting Indiana's 7-percent sales tax this summer is stalling in the Legislature, with some Senate leaders not wanting to interfere with a deal former Gov. Mitch Daniels reached with the company last year.

The Indiana House voted overwhelmingly in February in favor of a bill requiring sales tax collection in July — six months earlier than the agreement with Amazon. But that proposal that could mean tens of millions in additional tax collections isn't moving in the Senate, where Appropriations Committee Chairman Luke Kenley says it won't be taken up because the state should abide by the Amazon agreement.

Supporters of the bill maintain that the state's current policy allowing online retailers not to collect the state sales tax gives them an unfair advantage over traditional brick-and-mortar stores.

"All we're asking for is to put everybody on a level playing field and collect the tax," said bill sponsor Rep. Tom Dermody, R-LaPorte. "We're not taking any money away from any of the Internet companies."

Current policy dates to a 2007 deal with the Seattle-based Amazon, which agreed to open its first warehouse in Indiana with the promise that officials wouldn't push for online sales tax collection. Amazon now has five distribution centers in Indiana; it hasn't said how many people it employs.

After Indianapolis-based shopping mall owner Simon Property Group sued the state and there was lobbying push by traditional retailers over the policy, Daniels reached an agreement with Amazon last January for the company to voluntarily start collecting state sales tax in 2014.

Republican Gov. Mike Pence, who took office in January, told reporters recently that he supported the Daniels administration's agreement with Amazon and didn't want to break it.

Kenley, R-Noblesville, and Senate majority leader Brandt Hershman, R-Lafayette, are among the legislators who've raised concerns about hurting the state's reputation with businesses if it broke the deal with Amazon.

"They were under no obligation or legal requirement to do that. ... I'm perfectly comfortable with that arrangement," Kenley said.

The collection of sales taxes from online-only retailers is potentially lucrative for state government.

State officials project Indiana will see a $57 million a year boost in revenue just from Amazon sales, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency. A study completed last year by the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute and Ball State University researchers estimates the state doesn't collect up to $114 million a year in sales taxes on Internet purchases.

Indiana Retail Council President Grant Monahan said he believed the online sales tax bill would win approval if it reached the full Senate and that the trade group for traditional retail stores would continue pushing the issue through the end of the legislative session.

Supporters of the tax-collection proposal point to other states, including California and Texas, where Amazon is charging customers state sales taxes — but it isn't doing that in Indiana because of the deal that Daniels brokered.

"Amazon at the time said this was the best deal possible and then turned around and cut deals with a handful of states," Monahan said. "I think Amazon could have dealt more fairly with Indiana than they did."

The Associated Press left a telephone message Friday seeking comment from Amazon officials.

Looming over the entire matter is a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits states from forcing businesses without a physical presence in the area to collect sales tax. Kenley said Congress needed to give states the authorization to require tax collections by all online-only retailers and that he understood the frustrations of traditional store owners.

"It is not fair for them to have a 7-percent price disadvantage," Kenley said. "It's just totally unfair, but you've got to do this through the law."

The Indiana proposal would apply to online retailers with an office or warehouse in the state that generate at least $10,000 in annual sales to Hoosier customers. Current state law already requires sales tax collection for online sales by retailers, such as Wal-Mart, with Indiana stores.

The House Ways and Means Committee voted unanimously on Tuesday in favor of including Dermody's sales tax provisions in a Senate-approved bill, setting up for possible negotiations during the legislative session's final days in late April.

"I'm going to do what I can to keep it alive until the end of session," Dermody said. "I'm going to keep working this."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • What's fair is Fair!
    Brick and Mortor Retailers have the deck stacked against them Their Property taxes are far higher /SF, Their rent is higher /SF and they are forced to collect sales taxes which Online Retailers don't have to collect. If the state wants to see more of them driven out of business causing a lot more vacancy in shopping centers, creating higher rates of bankruptcy and loss of more and more property taxes, just keep giving in to the Online retailers!
  • Article Not Accurate
    The article states that "The Indiana proposal would apply to online retailers with an office or warehouse in the state." This isn't really true. The legislation would apply to retailers who even ADVERTISE on websites owned by Indiana residents if the Indiana residents are earning money through affiliate marketing. I don't understand why the IBJ keeps refusing to include information about any of the affiliate marketers that will lose their businesses if this legislation is passed. The state will actually lose revenue because Indiana affiliate marketers will lose their jobs.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.

ADVERTISEMENT