Supreme Court Declines Case On Making Online Retailers Collect Sales Taxes 293
thomst writes "Robert Barnes of the Washington Post reports that the US Supreme Court has declined to hear petitions from Amazon.com and Overstock.com requesting that a decision by the New York State Supreme Court permitting that state's 2008 law requiring sales taxes be collected on Internet sales, even if the seller has no 'business presence' in New York. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that Amazon's relationship with third-party affiliates in the state that receive commissions for sending Web traffic its way satisfied the 'substantial nexus' necessary to force the company to collect taxes, and New York's Supreme Court had affirmed the ruling. The Federal high court's refusal to hear the petitions leaves the state law in effect, even though it appears to conflict with the Court's 1993 decision in Quill v. North Dakota."
Re:Finally a flat playing ground (Score:5, Insightful)
Or consumers will just end up paying more, since more tax will be collected.
Re:Get Ready... (Score:4, Insightful)
At least, if I were in charge at Amazon.com or Overstock.com, I'd be looking to move the business out of the USA
And when your HDMI cable hit the US border you can enjoy paying any duties, taxes & customs brokerage fees that apply to a shipment from Antigua.
Re:Shocking news (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it bad? Anything that even *leans* towards someone in state A having to pay taxes to, and which were legislated in, state B, is destructive to the very fabric of the states.
Yeah, but there isn't any of that in this case. The people paying taxes to state B are in state B. The question isn't even does someone/business in state A have to collect taxes for state B. The question is for a business like Amazon, what does it mean to "be" in a state.
This may be a bad decision, but your comment doesn't address why.
Re:Finally a flat playing ground (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a good reason why the SCOTUS refused to hear this: It would be struck down. Article 1, section 9 of the US Constitution states: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." To put it simply: If I own a store in New Mexico, and I sell to somebody who lives in a different state... I don't collect any taxes or duties on that item. If I have a store in that state, I will have to collect taxes.
Your knowledge of the appellate process is matched by your understanding of interstate commerce law. If SCOTUS believes that something will be struck down, it DOES grant cert (e.g. accept the case). Refusing to hear the case means that the court believes the lower court decision was correctly decided. As for your comment on "no tax or duty," that would only be relevant if a state were placing taxes on out of state vendors that DON'T apply to in state vendors (i.e. NY wants Amazon to collect 20% sales tax, but Best Buy only has to charge 10%). In other words, it prohibits states from placing tariffs on the produce of other states to protect in-state producers. Again, there is ZERO debate that when a person in NY purchases something from Amazon, sales tax is owed on that transaction. The only question has been whether Amazon is obliged to collect that tax on behalf of the state, or whether the state needs to go directly to the purchaser to do it.
Re:Finally a flat playing ground (Score:5, Insightful)
Last weekend, I saw someone walk into a brick and mortar store and using an iPhone app, take a picture and order the product on Amazon, after taking up a salesperson's time answering questions.
We can argue over whether there should be any sales tax at all, but I can't see how you can argue that some companies should have to pay it and others shouldn't.