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."


  • 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

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.