PDA

View Full Version : California to start collecting online sales taxes



Parkbandit
06-30-2011, 08:57 AM
Reporting from Sacramento— Shopping at Amazon.com Inc. and other major Internet stores is poised to get more expensive.

Beginning Friday, a new state law will require large out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes on purchases that their California customers make on the Internet — a prospect eased only slightly by a 1-percentage-point drop in the tax that also takes effect at the same time.

Getting the taxes, which consumers typically don't pay to the state if online merchants don't charge them, is "a common-sense idea," said Gov. Jerry Brown, who signed the legislation into law Wednesday.

The new tax collection requirement — part of budget-related legislation — is expected to raise an estimated $317 million a year in new state and local government revenue.

But those taxes may come with a price. Amazon and online retailer Overstock.com Inc. told thousands of California Internet marketing affiliates that they will stop paying commissions for referrals of so-called click-through customers.

That's because the new requirement applies only to online sellers based out of state that have some connection to California, such as workers, warehouses or offices here.

Both Amazon in Seattle and Overstock in Salt Lake City have told affiliates that they would have to move to another state if they wanted to continue earning commissions for referring customers.

"We oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive," Amazon wrote its California business partners Wednesday. Amazon has not indicated what further actions it might take to challenge the California law.

Many of about 25,000 affiliates in California, especially larger ones with dozens of employees, are likely to leave the state, said Rebecca Madigan, executive director of trade group Performance Marketing Assn. The affiliates combined paid $152 million in state income taxes last year, she pointed out.

"We have to consider it," said Loren Bendele, chief executive of Savings.com, a West Los Angeles website that links viewers to hundreds of money-saving deals. "It does not look good for our business."

The larger bite from buyers' pocketbooks will be eased only a bit because California's basic sales tax rate also will drop to 7.75% on Friday when a 2-year-old temporary increase expires. The basic rate in the city of Los Angeles falls back to 8.75%.

Brown's signature on the budget bills is aimed at closing a loophole that freed Amazon and other out-of-state retailers from collecting sales taxes for California.

Not collecting sales taxes gave Internet retailers a competitive price advantage over California's small businesses such as independent booksellers and big-box retailers with a presence in the state, including Barnes & Noble Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Best Buy Co. and Target Corp.

"You can't give one segment of retail a 10% discount every day. It's just not fair," said Bill Dombrowski, president of the California Retailers Assn., a major player in a coalition of large and small stores supporting the legislation.

California's new requirement will generate badly needed state revenue and send a signal to Congress that "we want to see a national solution" to the issue of taxing Internet sales, Dombrowski said.

California is the seventh and largest state in the country to pass a law to collect taxes on out-of-state Internet sales. Illinois, Arkansas and Connecticut acted earlier this year, North Carolina and Rhode Island in 2009 and New York in 2008. Amazon sued to overturn the New York law and lost in the lower courts. The company is paying sales taxes into an escrow account pending an appeal.

Other states currently are considering similar sales tax collection bills.

California's new law was drafted to circumvent a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sellers can't be forced to collect sales taxes unless they have a physical presence in the state.

The new statute would establish that presence in two ways: when sellers pay commissions to other Internet sites in California, known as affiliates, that refer buyers; and when sellers have a related company operating in the state.

Amazon has thousands of such affiliates in California. It also has related business operations that include Lab126 Inc. in Cupertino, which develops Kindle electronic book readers, and a Studio City office for its Internet Movie Database unit.

One affiliate, Ken Rockwell of San Diego, the owner of a 12-year-old photography website, said he planned to move out of state.

"Will it be Las Vegas or Scottsdale or Ensenada?" he said. "It's a question of where, not if."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-amazon-tax-20110630,0,4344787.story

I'm all about lower taxes... but I'm more about having an even playing field. Why should I not have to pay the tax if I order online.. but I would have to pay tax if I bought the same exact item locally? It really makes no sense.. and it gives online retailers even more of a fiscal advantage over brick and mortar stores.

Warriorbird
06-30-2011, 09:01 AM
Meh. Fuck Cali.

~Rocktar~
06-30-2011, 09:31 AM
The big issue has been that you could not reliably prove where the person was when they bought the item regardless of the shipping or billing address. Since you can assure that a tourist buying something in a store is in that store, then you can charge them, even if they live in outer Mongolia. This is going to be the forefront of the Internet debate for the next few years as the Federal government doesn't have guidelines, states play the tax/tax free Internet game to attract business (or run them off) and the over all decision to tax or not to tax the Internet and it's traffic in the US is hashed out.

If we move to a tax on bandwidth and commerce on the Internet, then online development and proliferation will be slowed greatly. A great deal of business is done on the Internet without any physical goods at all such as information products and entertainment where the bandwidth makes it all possible. Imagine a tax/limit on bandwidth usage and how that will effect media providers line Netflix and iTunes online not to mention the Internet porn industry. It could well be crippling and this is just the tip of the iceberg for yet another onerous tax scheme from our overspending, gluttonous government. I would suggest barter as the ultimate solution but I am pretty sure the government would some up with a way to collect payment there too.

Tsa`ah
06-30-2011, 10:34 AM
The big issue has been that you could not reliably prove where the person was when they bought the item regardless of the shipping or billing address.

Umm no. The tax is assessed via billing and/or shipping info. Running across the state line does not allow a resident to escape the internet sales tax. IL implimented this tax years ago ... and if there were legal challenges such as "nuh uh ... I was in IN when I placed that order" .... judges have probably laughed them right off of the dockets.

~Rocktar~
06-30-2011, 10:46 AM
Umm no. The tax is assessed via billing and/or shipping info. Running across the state line does not allow a resident to escape the internet sales tax. IL implimented this tax years ago ... and if there were legal challenges such as "nuh uh ... I was in IN when I placed that order" .... judges have probably laughed them right off of the dockets.

You would, as usual, be wrong. The most successful taxing of purchase online has been based on the registered address of the seller. Only recently have they gotten into the idea of taxing based on the buyer's residence. This kind of argument has gone on for a long long time in catalog sales and continues today online.

CrystalTears
06-30-2011, 11:03 AM
You would, as usual, be wrong. The most successful taxing of purchase online has been based on the registered address of the seller. Only recently have they gotten into the idea of taxing based on the buyer's residence. This kind of argument has gone on for a long long time in catalog sales and continues today online.
States have been adapting that sales tax be based on the residence of the buyer, not the seller. Tsa`ah is correct that where the business is does not change the fact that if the buyer resides in Chicago, he's paying that enormous Chicago rate, not the rate of where he purchased it. This is especially true when paying sales tax on a vehicle. The sales tax is almost always where the vehicle is going to be garaged, which is usually the buyer's residence.

Tsa`ah
06-30-2011, 11:03 AM
What part of IL has been doing this for a while now did not not understand?

The tax is assessed via the billing and or shipping address of the CONSUMER. In the case of IL two separate laws, one signed just two months ago that is nearly identical to CA's, forces on-line vendors to collect the tax at the time of sale (most were anyway) ... in addition to those vendors that operate within the state (Amazon and Overstock were not). Until this bill was passed in IL, it fell upon the consumer to pay the tax if the vendor did not collect it. Now the responsibility to collect falls upon the vendor.

At this point I have no idea what you're arguing about. It seems to be that if you reside in said state (be it IL or CA) that you are exempt from said tax as a consumer if you purchase something over the inter-net while in a different state for whatever reason. No one is going to agree with you on this simply because it is a complete collapse of logic that is totally devoid of anything anyone would want to call common sense.

As I said, if there were any legal challenges to this law ... judges have laughed it at the docket. I'm probably sure they were laughing and saying "Only a Squiggles would think they didn't have to pay the tax because they ordered whatever while looking for a lactating bondage slave in Indiana." or perhaps "Only a lawyer with a degree from Wal-mart would think this."

~Rocktar~
06-30-2011, 11:21 AM
States have been adapting that sales tax be based on the residence of the buyer, not the seller. Tsa`ah is correct that where the business is does not change the fact that if the buyer resides in Chicago, he's paying that enormous Chicago rate, not the rate of where he purchased it. This is especially true when paying sales tax on a vehicle. The sales tax is almost always where the vehicle is going to be garaged, which is usually the buyer's residence.

Again, this is for physical businesses, catalog and online sales have not been this way and this is the current debate on how they will tax. Does Amazon collect Il tax? Unlikely, they don't collect my local sales tax and neither do a lot/majority of online businesses. This is the issue and where the tax model falls down and where Tsa'ah is wrong.

~Rocktar~
06-30-2011, 11:27 AM
As I said, if there were any legal challenges to this law ... judges have laughed it at the docket. I'm probably sure they were laughing and saying "Only a Squiggles would think they didn't have to pay the tax because they ordered whatever while looking for a lactating bondage slave in Indiana." or perhaps "Only a lawyer with a degree from Wal-mart would think this."

Tired old trolling in an attempt to distract is still tired old trolling. And I still don't work at Walmart and am coming up on a year away no matter how much you want it to not be true. OH, just for fun, 2 mo ago I was promoted to a supervisory position. Have fun trolling.

Tsa`ah
06-30-2011, 11:41 AM
Again, this is for physical businesses, catalog and online sales have not been this way and this is the current debate on how they will tax. Does Amazon collect Il tax? Unlikely, they don't collect my local sales tax and neither do a lot/majority of online businesses. This is the issue and where the tax model falls down and where Tsa'ah is wrong.

I live in IL ... when I order from Newegg I pay IL sales tax. When I played WoW, I payed IL sales tax. Just about every purchase of goods or service I have made on-line over the past several years have been assessed an IL sales tax ... with the exception of Amazon and Overstock. Though the Kitchaid my wife purchased for me in Dec of last year through Overstock was assessed an IL sales tax ... I guess they saw it coming and decided to just start doing it.

The bill our governor signed into law, that the CA law mirrors, just closed the loop hole. Prior to the new law, vendors were not required to collect the tax, most just did so. Be they in the state or not.

And yes ... there are a number of Amazon vendors in IL, as well as actual Amazon operation sites. But you do realize that Amazon isn't an actual vendor per say, they're more like a mall that vendors operate out of.

Again, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue or what debate you're talking about. The debate is actually over and has been for several years in reference to IL.

Latrinsorm
06-30-2011, 11:52 AM
Amazon made the same quasi-threat when CT did this. It's an interesting situation because certainly each individual state wants more tax revenue, but if they lose businesses it backfires, but if all the states do it there's no place in America for Amazon to run to. You could call it a dumb for one, smart for all situation.
States have been adapting that sales tax be based on the residence of the buyer, not the seller. Tsa`ah is correct that where the business is does not change the fact that if the buyer resides in Chicago, he's paying that enormous Chicago rate, not the rate of where he purchased it. This is especially true when paying sales tax on a vehicle. The sales tax is almost always where the vehicle is going to be garaged, which is usually the buyer's residence.Ooh, a "garage". Did you hear that guys? A "garage". Well la de da, Ms. French person.

Tsa`ah
06-30-2011, 11:58 AM
6.25% isn't all that much ... and I wouldn't call it an enormous Chicago rate.

g++
06-30-2011, 12:35 PM
I wonder how long till Delaware sets up a tax evasion PO box system for the internet.

CrystalTears
06-30-2011, 01:33 PM
Ooh, a "garage". Did you hear that guys? A "garage". Well la de da, Ms. French person.
Wha? It's how it's phrased on the DMV form! :P

CrystalTears
06-30-2011, 01:42 PM
6.25% isn't all that much ... and I wouldn't call it an enormous Chicago rate.
It was more in reference to vehicle purchases (which is what I'm most familiar with) because Chicago has a home rule tax of 1.25% in addition to the state rate, so it's 8.5% in the end. Although the general merchandise rate in Chicago is 9.75% so I consider that pretty steep too considering the average sales tax rate is (give or take) 4%.

Tsa`ah
06-30-2011, 03:17 PM
It was more in reference to vehicle purchases (which is what I'm most familiar with) because Chicago has a home rule tax of 1.25% in addition to the state rate, so it's 8.5% in the end. Although the general merchandise rate in Chicago is 9.75% so I consider that pretty steep too considering the average sales tax rate is (give or take) 4%.

I'm not sure if Chicago's local tax has any impact on internet sales though. I don't live in Chicago or Cook county. Most people that make large purchases in Chicago do so outside of city limits ... or even county limits (if you're buying tobacco or alcohol).

IL's internet tax laws don't really take locally assessed taxes into consideration, nor do they provide state level enforcement for them.

crb
11-12-2012, 12:41 PM
Affiliate nexus laws and stupid and they suck. States that try them end up losing revenue as companies just cancel affiliates in that state, causing said people to lose income, income they'll pay no taxes on now.

Also stupid, trying to get online retailers to file taxes in states where they have no presence. Bitch and moan about fairness all you want. Sales taxes along with reporting requirements, vary in each state, sometimes in counties or cities within each state. Sure... Amazon could probably handle it, but imagine small businesses, they would have to file hundreds of different sales tax returns.

And the bitching and moaning about fairness isn't accurate anyways. The online retailer can seemingly offer a lower price, but there is a shipping cost either built into the product price or levied on top, the brick and mortar retailer doesn't have that cost.

Anyways, Supreme Court ruled on this issue long ago, states have no power to levy taxes on out of state entities. The Affiliate Nexus loophole is just that, and as of yet SCOTUS hasn't ruled on it.

Really stupid for CA to do it considering the tech industry is something they depend on... they'll chase people away like this:

http://www.wrex.com/Global/story.asp?S=14413567

~Rocktar~
11-12-2012, 12:57 PM
Holy necro a dead fucking thread Batman! To paraphrase a line from Princess Leia:

'The more you tighten your grip on the tax money Brown, the more businesses that will slip through your fingers.'

Taernath
11-12-2012, 05:10 PM
Now that CA is doing it, other states want to as well.

Manamethis
11-12-2012, 05:15 PM
This is bad for us.

Why do we allow them to create more and more taxes?

Parkbandit
11-12-2012, 05:24 PM
This is bad for us.

Why do we allow them to create more and more taxes?

Why do you hate {insert victim group here.. like poor people or Mother Earth}??

Atlanteax
01-24-2013, 12:45 PM
(tried to find an existing thread about California and excessive taxation)

Looks like pro-golfers are bucking the 'celebrity culture' of California in planning to live outside of California in order to avoid taxes (a parallel with that French actor who decided to switch to Russian citizenship to avoid France's high taxation rate).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266830/Tiger-Woods-admits-left-California-tax-rates.html?ICO=most_read_module


Tiger Woods said today that the reason he left California in the mid-Nineties was because the state's taxes were too high.

If the rich (and any of the upper middle class who can find jobs elsewhere) leave ... who will California tax to sustain their massively bloated social spending programs?

It's not businesses, they've been relocating to Nevada (and elsewhere).

Will... gulp ... California... a bastion of liberal spending policies... resort to cutting spending?!?

Androidpk
01-24-2013, 12:56 PM
Cut spending? As if. They'll wait for a bailout from uncle Sam.

AnticorRifling
01-24-2013, 12:56 PM
Higher taxes on weed brah we can fix this.

Jarvan
01-24-2013, 01:03 PM
Cut spending? As if. They'll wait for a bailout from uncle Sam.

^

This. They will just say they will go bankrupt if the Fed doesn't bail them out.

Which is funny, because isn't every state required by law to have a balanced budget? Why do none of them basically, ever do?

Atlanteax
04-17-2013, 12:15 PM
Another California Democrat who just hate retired people:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/16/news/economy/seniors-national-parks/index.html?iid=s_mpm


But Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, asked National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis if the nation can afford such a deal for seniors anymore, especially with most Americans opposed to paying higher taxes that would pay to maintain national treasures such as parks.

"$10? At age 65? I think we need to look at that," Speier said. "There's a lot of people who can pay more than $10 for the rest of their lives."

Brilliant idea ... put the squeeze on retired people ... which is already in the works with plans to make it more difficult to independently plan for retirement with greater restrictions on IRAs/etc.