More States Propose Internet Sales Taxes

What I find hilarious is that as much bitching as people are gonna do on this forum and elsewhere, affiliates (in general) are lazy selfish pricks and won't lift a finger to do anything about it.

Example: Do you live in California? Are you a member of the ad tax google group that's helping fight the bill currently being debated in cali? PMA California Advertising Tax | Google Groups There are only like 35 members right now, pretty pathetic. I know at least 35 people personally that are in the biz living in cali.

Maryland's up next. Need more people http://groups.google.com/group/pma-md

Also read the bottom here to learn how to get involved, although you probably won't:

The Affiliate Ad Taxes: Why You Should Care | NickyCakes.com

i dont like your persona, but i appreciated the post on your blog that thoughtfully explained in lay terms how this affected everyone. best writeup ive seen on it yet..
 


People will still buy online. The real problem is, if Amazon is required to collect sales taxes everywhere, there are over 6000 tax jurisdictions in the US who will want to have sales tax collected on their behalf. That requires people to keep track of ALL the laws in ALL the jurisdictions. This is doable...for amazon, because they'd have the resources, but for anyone else an impossibility. Obstructions to interstate commerce should be avoided at all costs, which is why the commerce clause exists in the constitution.

i completely agree this is obstruction and probably unconstitutional, but it's not really a cogent argument IMO because the federal tax code is already ridiculously complicated and we hire professionals to handle that, too.

API-based service providers already exist for maintaining nexus obligations and remitting sales and use tax funds.

a quick google turned up this Sales and Use Tax Basic 5.0.0 for finding current rates in real-time

and i know that there are providers to handle remittance for all the districts.

edit: http://www.avalara.com/
 
If any affiliates in those states want to move your business to Texas (no state tax), I'll be your registered agent for a small yearly fee. :) I can refer a laywer and I have a physical address you can have mail sent to. I'll forward it to you wherever you want (for a small fee again).
 
If any affiliates in those states want to move your business to Texas (no state tax), I'll be your registered agent for a small yearly fee. :) I can refer a laywer and I have a physical address you can have mail sent to. I'll forward it to you wherever you want (for a small fee again).

There are plenty of companies that already do this for people and have been for years, what is the incentive to use you over them?
 
If any affiliates in those states want to move your business to Texas (no state tax), I'll be your registered agent for a small yearly fee. :) I can refer a laywer and I have a physical address you can have mail sent to. I'll forward it to you wherever you want (for a small fee again).

yep. every time i hear people bitch about taxes in certain states I ask myself why you guys dont just move your physical address and pay a small yearly fee... you'll save more than that amount by doing this. with this biz nobody really cares about where you are located...
 
It was just an offer to WF members that may be getting screwed right now, I'm not trying to compete in this market. But if you want some reasons PM me.
 
IMO Amazon did the right thing , states that increase taxation over cutting of wasteful government spending should realize that they're only hurting themselves.

You got the point, man.
Amazon action is worth hundred google groups against internet taxes all together.
The sad side of this story is represented by affiliates who are the weak ring of the chain.
 
People will still buy online. The real problem is, if Amazon is required to collect sales taxes everywhere, there are over 6000 tax jurisdictions in the US who will want to have sales tax collected on their behalf. That requires people to keep track of ALL the laws in ALL the jurisdictions. This is doable...for amazon, because they'd have the resources, but for anyone else an impossibility. Obstructions to interstate commerce should be avoided at all costs, which is why the commerce clause exists in the constitution.

You're right of course. This is actually already a problem as each county has different retail taxes in a state but if you're doing ecommerce in your state you must charge them taxes. Keeping track is way to hard and most retailers just charge the highest rate in the state. If it got to that point I'm sure businesses would popup to handle this for other businesses though.
 
.... but we can smoke weed? that's really the make-or-break of it.
as far as i'm concerned, <1oz is completely decriminalized in alaska, and a 1000w grow light would double as a space heater, so uhh, PM me if you're serious :-p

do they have college in alaska? if so i'm down...
 
it doesn't even matter if these laws dont get approved. somethin stupid is just going to happen again in a few months from now. obamas a b*tch
 
The internet has been far to efficient a market place and moving way to fast because of it. Hell it's innovation is probably one of the key things that has kept the global economy going, should we really let that continue without fucking things up a little? It's about time the government started nosing in to cost everyone 3 times as much in waste as they collect in taxes.
 
Obstructions to interstate commerce should be avoided at all costs, which is why the commerce clause exists in the constitution.

I think this is why Amazon dropped CO affiliates. They are probably not going to comply with collecting sales tax or providing the state with information about purchases and when the state goes to court, they can argue that they have no nexus in the state and therefore the state can't add burdens on them thus obstructing interstate commerce. Dropping the affiliates was probably a pre-emptive move so that the state can't claim that they have nexus in the state.
 
^^^ this

Plus if it comes down to it, and it goes to any higher courts - there is an argument for stare decisis which is the legal principle by which judges are obliged to obey the set-up precedents established by prior decisions. They can argue Qull Corp V North Dakota and it will be a slam dunk:

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) is a Supreme Court of the United States case concerning use tax. Quill Corporation is an office supply retailer. Quill had no physical presence in North Dakota (neither a sales force, nor a retail outlet), however it did have a licensed computer software program that some of its North Dakota customers used to check Quill's current inventories and place orders directly. North Dakota attempted to impose a use tax on Quill, which was struck down by the Supreme Court.
 
y8EER.jpg