Amazon Prevails In State Sales Tax Dispute, Thus Far 171
snsh writes "A US judge has ruled for Amazon.com (PDF) against North Carolina's request to turn over the names of its customers to state tax officials. The ruling was focused on privacy grounds, so the state can still re-request less detailed sales data which does not identify items purchased."
Reader arbitraryaardvark adds a link to The Volokh Conspiracy's take on the decision.
Re:Good for us Sellers (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good for us Sellers (Score:5, Informative)
like transferring goods.
Conducting business transactions and transferring goods to someone out of state is called interstate commerce. And the supreme law of the land says that the power to regulate interstate commerce belongs exclusively to the US congress, and specifically indicates that states do not have the power to lay tarrifs, duties, imposts, or otherwise tax imports.
In other words.. no... the foreign state doesn't have authority or power to regulate you transferring goods into their state; that authority has been explicitly reserved for the feds.
Re:Good for us Sellers (Score:5, Informative)
No, since you put all those purchases on your state income tax return and paid use tax on them at the appropriate rate it won't affect you at all.
Re:Ammend the constitution already! (Score:3, Informative)
Why not? We've passed many amendments, including stupid ones. Like the banning of alcohol. How in the world that ever managed to get 75% support is a mystery.
Besides amending the Constitution IS the proper method of extending the US Congresses' authority. Otherwise laws will be nullified by the 10th amendment. (Powers not given to the US are reserved to the States or the People.)
Re:Conviced Felons (Score:3, Informative)
Only 2 states, Kentucky & Virginia, deny felons the right to vote for the rest of their lives, although Kentucky has a process to restore that right. Other states disallow voting for felons in prison, on probation, on parole, etc.--just depends on the state. Maine & Vermont allow felons to vote while in prison. Oddly, "felony disenfranchisement" laws have been found to be constitutional
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement [wikipedia.org]
Re:Good for us Sellers (Score:4, Informative)
English motherfucker. Learn it.
LOL, you just called him an "English motherfucker."
Mr. pot, meet mister kettle.
Re:Good for us Sellers (Score:2, Informative)
No?
Isn't that what "no taxation without representation" means?
Residents of other states have no voice in NC's legislature.
Therefore NC has no authority over them.
That isn't the point. If Amazon actually charged the NC sales tax, Amazon would have to remit the sales tax revenue to the government of NC. Amazon would not keep the tax. Amazon would not pay the tax, it is the customers in NC that would pay the tax. Amazon would simply be the tax collector.
The point is the government of NC does not have the legal authority to force an out-of-state company to become a tax collector for NC.
That is interstate commerce, which under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution falls under the control of the US Congress, not the government of NC:
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
Re:Huh.. (Score:1, Informative)
Actually the government does have power over Amazon.com even if they are not a resident, they have the power to forbid Amazon from conducting business within the confines of the State of North Carolina without a license. Consumers are not exempt from paying sales tax when the item comes from another state, it's the company which is exempt from charging sales tax - according to the current tax code in most states it's the consumer's responsibility to pay the tax anyway (of course this almost never occurs).
The current issue is sales tax, Amazon agreed to providing lists of the lots sold by zip code, but they refused to turn over itemized lists of the items along with their value and the names of the customers who bought them. Lucky for us (and internet commerce) the courts sided with Amazon. The real big-picture issue, which hasn't been addressed yet, is that the Federal Government has ignored states rights when it comes to commerce conducted over the internet. For example, Amazon is based in the state of Washington, the item is provided via a third party vendor in Mississippi, its shipped from a warehouse in Kansas to an address in NYC - which state has the right to collect sales tax? This issue has been perplexing congress from a long time now, there os no easy answer, and by congresses inaction there may never be an answer - we may remain in limbo for a long time (which is of course great for consumers).
Re:Pork for the "red states". (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wait! Don't tech companies love Big Brother? (Score:3, Informative)
Use taxes don't violate the Interstate Commerce clause. Not even Amazon claims that. Here is a pretty good explanation of how state taxes interact with the Interstate Commerce clause [state.mn.us]. Note that a tax is illegal only if it discriminates against Interstate Commerce, and particularly note the heading Discriminatory Taxes May Be Valid as Complementary Taxes.
Re:A Little More Complicated Than That... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good for us Sellers (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, transferring a full-auto requires not only an FFL in the hands of the *seller* (who, as a licensed dealer must run at least an ID check and instant background check) but *also* a $200 tax stamp paid to the ATF, who runs a *separate* background check as full-auto weapons fall under the FFA. This check is certainly not instant (generally takes 1-6 months) to recieve the approval via mail. In other words, nowhere in the US can a buyer "show up" to a gun show or store and leave that same day with a full-auto weapon.