Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Businesses The Internet United States News

Federal Court Tosses Colorado's Amazon Tax 229

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the respect-my-federal-commerce-clause dept.
suraj.sun writes, quoting the Denver Post: "A federal court has thrown out a 2010 Colorado law, which had already been temporarily blocked in federal court last year, meant to spur online retailers like Amazon to collect state sales tax. 'I conclude that the veil provided by the words of the act and the regulations is too thin to support the conclusion that the act and the regulations regulate in-state and out-of-state retailers even-handedly,' U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn wrote in his opinion. The law and the rules to carry it out 'impose an undue burden on interstate commerce' and are unconstitutional, the judge wrote. The tax mainly affected online sales of out-of-state companies that have in-state affiliates, usually generating sales through links on their websites." I wonder what this means for the plethora of similar bills in other states. Will Amazon continue to call for a national Internet sales tax if they are all struck down?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Federal Court Tosses Colorado's Amazon Tax

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @08:51AM (#39570883)

    Logically, any sales tax levied should be the state you purchased the item from, not where you live. If I drive to a neighboring state and buy something, I pay that state's sales tax, not my home state's sales tax. By extension if I buy something online, the state where the "store" is located should be the one collecting sales tax. When ordering online from a store with multiple locations in different states, it should probably be the state where of the warehouse it ships from since that's essentially the last point at which it was in the seller's possession. Some might argue that the tax should be collected in the state in which the sale occurred but a single online sale can occur in 2 states simultaneously. Ordering online can be likened to having an designated agent go to another state to purchase something for you and bring it back to you.

  • Re:Best Buy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kalriath (849904) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @09:14AM (#39571127)

    For the billionth time, it isn't "giving Amazon a pass" it's recognition of the fact that the reality is you can't tax purchases that occur over the internet or the telephone. The first problem is whose tax rules should apply... the source? Nice and easy, but that results in double taxation as the destination jurisdiction demands a "use tax" payment - and if the destination is a different country, an entire treaty is needed just to prevent it being taxed twice. The destination rules might work, but what about where the tax should be collected? You could collect it at the source, but then you have the problem of retailers outside of your jurisdiction - you can't apply laws to them (DealExtreme for example would be unlikely to charge and remit the tax. Besides, Europe already tried this and got told to get bent by the USA, so it'd be pretty hypocritical to try it). Collect at the destination instead? Could work - but you either have to do it on the honour system, rely on retailers to hand your local authority their entire sales receipts so they can comb through looking for transactions that need tax collected (not going to happen) or apply it at the border - which doesn't really work in places like the USA where goods don't pass through customs agents getting from A to B.

  • by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @10:03AM (#39571709) Journal

    The strip search is unreasonable. There is absolutely nothing that could possibly justify the sexual abuse of someone who is falsely accused of paying a fine.

    See, the SC didn't even address that. They only addressed whether it was reasonable to strip search someone going to jail. That was never the question at all.

  • Re:Sure, but (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Local ID10T (790134) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @10:22AM (#39571987) Homepage

    I'm sorry, but you still aren't paying the tax. You increased the price of the product to include the tax, and then make it transparent to the consumer. You are remitting the tax on behalf of the consumer in the same way as if you were to tack it on to the end.

    WRONG.

    Our prices are set by price matching other sellers in the various markets we sell in. There is no increase in price to hide the tax. Any additions would make our products non-competitive.

    Of course it is possible that we are price matching competitors who have built in a buffer to cover their tax liabilities, but its not relevant either from our standpoint or from our customers.

  • by NatasRevol (731260) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @10:23AM (#39571999) Journal

    Strip searches for PRISONERS is ok. You've lost rights.

    Strip searches for ARRESTEES is not ok. You're not guilty of anything.

    You're conflating the two.

    The SCOTUS didn't. They say it's ok for any arrestee to be strip searched, giving the jail administrators leeway for not having to do so. As if they'll not take it.

"Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..." -- Professor in the UCB physics department

Working...