Its coming near you:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/31/amazon-california-idUSN3111195020110531d
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/31/amazon-california-idUSN3111195020110531d
Cali Amazon to collect sales tax
- Thread starter Sakana
- Start date
Fixed the link for yah: Calif. Assembly requires Amazon to collect sales tax | Reuters
And Amazon isn't going to be collecting the sales tax. They'll just end their relationship with all Californian Affiliates and therefore be exempt from the law.
So, what happens?
California collects zero revenue and they wipe out taxable income to approximately 10,000 Californian affiliates. So they actually end up losing government spending as a result.
If any of you west coasters vote, make sure it's not for any of the 50 that voted yes on this law.
And Amazon isn't going to be collecting the sales tax. They'll just end their relationship with all Californian Affiliates and therefore be exempt from the law.
So, what happens?
California collects zero revenue and they wipe out taxable income to approximately 10,000 Californian affiliates. So they actually end up losing government spending as a result.
If any of you west coasters vote, make sure it's not for any of the 50 that voted yes on this law.
This happen to affiliates in Illinois a few months ago. Shit sucks.
I would not be surprised if within a few years Amazon is forced to collect sales tax. Technology has improved so much that the 1992 supreme court ruling is not applicable anymore. Almost no one pays the taxes on the stuff they buy online with the current system. Seeing how tax happy the government is, there is a good chance this will happen.
Too many fucking taxes.
I would not be surprised if within a few years Amazon is forced to collect sales tax. Technology has improved so much that the 1992 supreme court ruling is not applicable anymore. Almost no one pays the taxes on the stuff they buy online with the current system. Seeing how tax happy the government is, there is a good chance this will happen.
Too many fucking taxes.
Amazon has been collecting sales tax for items shipped here to KY for quite a while now. We don't have a special affiliate law so I don't know what the deal is.
Many of the posts here reflect an incomplete view of the proposed California law.
With my apologies to others, who are apparently assuming the California bill is similar to those affiliate based bills in other statues - this is NOT an affiliate based law being proposed.
This is a NEW and NOVEL approach that SPECIFICALLY REJECTS TAXING AMAZON BECAUSE IT HAS AFFILIATES IN CALIFORNIA.
Here is the situation:
Amazon.com, Inc. is based in Seattle.
That corporation controls an umbrella of subsidiaries / wholly owned businesses.
Those other businesses include Amazon.com, LLC, which operates the online website.
They also include A9.com, which is a CALIFORNIA corporation, wholly owned by the corporation.
They include Lab 126, a CALIFORNIA business involved in creating the Kindle.
Bottom line: Amazon owns and controls business entities located in California, doing business in California, employing California residents, and so on.
What the Proposed Law Does
Assembly Bill 155 states that a corporation controlling a group of other companies in California, as Amazon does, is doing business in California and subject to paying sales tax on its sales here.
As stated in legislative analysis at:
AB 155 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis
"This bill would establish a new and rather novel approach for reducing the use tax gap. Specifically, it would impose a use tax collection obligation on "out-of-state" retailers with in-state sister companies that provide services connected to the retailer's sales of TPP"
"this bill would not attribute nexus to remote vendors based on the activity of in-state affiliates. Indeed, this bill makes absolutely no reference to affiliates and would instead attribute nexus based on the activities of in-state sister companies."
Will Amazon drop California Affiliates?
As noted in the legislative analysis, on February 24th, Amazon wrote a letter saying it would drop all California affiliates if this bill passed.
2 important notes about that:
First, the draft bill at that time included a requirement that Amazon report all purchase information about California residents, or face fines:
"shall annually file with the board a report that sets forth the names and addresses of purchasers of the tangible personal property, the sales price of the property, the date of sale, and other relevant information as may be required by the board....
(3) Each person required to comply with paragraph (1) shall be subject to a penalty of ten dollars ($10) per violation for each name of a purchaser that was not included in the report for each annual period."
The language has now been entirely deleted.
Second, even if Amazon drops all of its California affiliates, under AB 155's novel approach it is still considered to be doing business in California because of the control group of California companies it owns.
Dropping affiliates does nothing for Amazon.
Selling and divesting itself of its California subsidiaries is what Amazon would need to do to avoid the law.
Amazon could of course still drop California affiliates as a matter of spite. But it would still owe the sales tax.
With my apologies to others, who are apparently assuming the California bill is similar to those affiliate based bills in other statues - this is NOT an affiliate based law being proposed.
This is a NEW and NOVEL approach that SPECIFICALLY REJECTS TAXING AMAZON BECAUSE IT HAS AFFILIATES IN CALIFORNIA.
Here is the situation:
Amazon.com, Inc. is based in Seattle.
That corporation controls an umbrella of subsidiaries / wholly owned businesses.
Those other businesses include Amazon.com, LLC, which operates the online website.
They also include A9.com, which is a CALIFORNIA corporation, wholly owned by the corporation.
They include Lab 126, a CALIFORNIA business involved in creating the Kindle.
Bottom line: Amazon owns and controls business entities located in California, doing business in California, employing California residents, and so on.
What the Proposed Law Does
Assembly Bill 155 states that a corporation controlling a group of other companies in California, as Amazon does, is doing business in California and subject to paying sales tax on its sales here.
As stated in legislative analysis at:
AB 155 Assembly Bill - Bill Analysis
"This bill would establish a new and rather novel approach for reducing the use tax gap. Specifically, it would impose a use tax collection obligation on "out-of-state" retailers with in-state sister companies that provide services connected to the retailer's sales of TPP"
"this bill would not attribute nexus to remote vendors based on the activity of in-state affiliates. Indeed, this bill makes absolutely no reference to affiliates and would instead attribute nexus based on the activities of in-state sister companies."
Will Amazon drop California Affiliates?
As noted in the legislative analysis, on February 24th, Amazon wrote a letter saying it would drop all California affiliates if this bill passed.
2 important notes about that:
First, the draft bill at that time included a requirement that Amazon report all purchase information about California residents, or face fines:
"shall annually file with the board a report that sets forth the names and addresses of purchasers of the tangible personal property, the sales price of the property, the date of sale, and other relevant information as may be required by the board....
(3) Each person required to comply with paragraph (1) shall be subject to a penalty of ten dollars ($10) per violation for each name of a purchaser that was not included in the report for each annual period."
The language has now been entirely deleted.
Second, even if Amazon drops all of its California affiliates, under AB 155's novel approach it is still considered to be doing business in California because of the control group of California companies it owns.
Dropping affiliates does nothing for Amazon.
Selling and divesting itself of its California subsidiaries is what Amazon would need to do to avoid the law.
Amazon could of course still drop California affiliates as a matter of spite. But it would still owe the sales tax.
Now Playing: Amazon's video message to the American public -> say goodbye to #78 on the fortune500 thanks to your greedy politicians.
Here goes my fucking horrendous state of California, being anti-business, fucking themselves in the ass with no lubricant with a giant dildo.
There's a reason companies have been leaving California for more pro-business states like Texas.
Thank you, Democrats of the California Legislature!
There's a reason companies have been leaving California for more pro-business states like Texas.
Thank you, Democrats of the California Legislature!
I didn't know WF was the place to use citations.
And it's from a lawyer with this specialization. QQ more cock knuckle.
Soon either amazon is going to end it's affiliate program completely or just start paying taxes. I suppose they're hoping for option 3 though if they can lobby enough to end sales tax completely for online transactions but they don't seem to have enough balls to spend enough money on lobbyists to do it.