IBJNews

Supreme Court won't hear appeal over Internet taxation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

On perhaps the busiest online shopping day of the year, the Supreme Court refused Monday to wade into a dispute over New York state's taxes on purchases on websites like Amazon.com.

The move likely will prompt more states to attempt to collect taxes on Internet sales — and ignite a furious battle in Congress between Internet sellers, brick-and-mortar stores and states hungry for extra tax revenue.

The high court without comment turned away appeals from Amazon.com LLC and Overstock.com Inc., in their fights against a New York court decision forcing them to remit sales tax the same way in-state businesses do. This could affect online shopping in that state, since for many shoppers one of the attractions of Internet purchasing is the lack of a state sales tax, which makes some items a little cheaper than they would be inside a brick-and-mortar store.

The National Council of State Legislatures estimated that states didn't get an estimated $23.3 billion in 2012 as a result of not collecting sales tax on online and catalog purchases.

Web retailers generally have not had to charge sales taxes in states where they lack a store or some other physical presence. But New York and other states say that a retailer has a physical presence when it uses affiliates — people and businesses that refer customers to the retailer's website and collect a commission on sales. These affiliates range from one-person blogs promoting the latest gadgets to companies that run coupon and deal sites.

Amazon and Overstock both use affiliate programs. Seattle-based Amazon has been collecting sales tax in New York as it fights the state over a 2008 law that was the first to consider local affiliates enough of an in-state presence to require sales tax collection. Overstock ended its affiliate program in 2008 after the law passed.

But each state has its own rules on Internet sales taxes. While this settles the issue for New York state, other states like Illinois have come to different conclusions — meaning that some Americans will still get state-tax free Internet purchases from certain websites, while others won't simply because of where they live.

And the big Internet sellers aren't giving up. After the decision, both Amazon and Overstock said they plan to take their case to Congress in hopes of getting a federal decision on state-level Internet sales taxes that would apply to every state uniformly.

"States might take courage from this non-decision but they shouldn't," said Jonathan Johnson, executive vice chairman of Overstock.com. Johnson pointed out that they pulled their New York affiliate operations in 2008 after that state passed its law, and that other companies fled Illinois after that state passed a similar law.

Internet companies will simply operate in states that have laws advantageous to their businesses, Johnson said. "Unless all the states choose to do this, I think there will be a strong affiliate market" somewhere, he said.

For example, the Illinois state Supreme Court in October threw out that state's taxes on certain Internet sales, saying the so-called "Amazon tax" violated federal rules against "discriminatory taxes" on digital transactions. State officials are considering whether to appeal their case to the Supreme Court.

In Indiana, Amazon has so far avoided collecting sales taxes, but must begin collecting them in 2014 under an agreement reached in 2012 with former Gov. Mitch Daniels. Lawmakers at the last General Assembly tried to move up that deadline to July, but the legislation failed.

___

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Less $ in the hands of Gov't
    Lora, the answer to your question is simple: every penny saved from the irresponsible clutches of government spenders is a penny less power they have over us. Slowly those pennies add up to dollars. When they started it was only 2%! Heck, that's almost nothing! Now it's 7 or 8% depending you where you live. And it NEVER goes down, only UP! It's time we cut off the feed-trough to the pigs in government. We have to; they won't.
  • I see both sides of this argument but...
    What we REALLY need isn't more ways to raise tax revenue, but more ways to cut unnecessary spending. We could trim a ton of useless programs that may not use up that much individually but when there are many hundreds of them, it adds up. Examples: some streets get paved at regular intervals even if they don't need it. It is on some kind of "schedule"; meanwhile streets BADLY in need of maintenance don't get resurfaced because they are not considered major thoroughfares and therefor don't get actively scheduled. They need to do it based on NEED not on schedules. That is but one of many examples out there of what is really nothing more than wasteful spending.
  • Why all the fuss?
    In order to do my ordering on the NET, paying sales tax is no bother at all. If I went to the stores to shop, I'd have to pay it. I gladly pay the sales tax in order to not have to go out and shop in the stores. Having things shipped to my front door---heavenly! Excluding groceries, practically everything I buy is ordered on the NET. This is the way of the future.

    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