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. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

    2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

    3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

    4. Exciting times in Carmel.

    5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

    ADVERTISEMENT