Disapproves
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| Lawmakers want to tax Amazon sales in California |
| 2010-02-21 |
| State lawmakers hunting for revenue are eyeing one source that could prove costly to millions of California consumers: Amazon.com. The online retail giant has enjoyed an edge over many competitors in the state because it is not required to collect sales tax from residents who buy books, top-of-the-line plasma televisions, cases of diapers and thousands of other products from its website. The Seattle corporation has no store, warehouse, office building or other physical presence in California, and the state cannot tax such businesses under a 1992 Supreme Court decision. Consumers here are required to pay sales tax on the goods they purchase at Amazon but almost never do, because the state has no mechanism for tracking Amazon purchases and collecting the money. Now California is one of several cash-strapped states exploring a novel legal strategy that could force Amazon and others like it, including Overstock.com, to start collecting tax from their customers. New York launched the effort with a law that took effect in 2008. North Carolina and Rhode Island have passed similar laws; other proposals have advanced in the statehouses of Virginia, Illinois, Colorado and Hawaii. The Democrats who control California's Legislature plan to put their own bid on the governor's desk this month in hopes of reaping up to $150 million annually for state and local coffers. The revenue would make only a tiny dent in the state's $20-billion deficit, but supporters say every dollar counts in tight times, and there's a principle at stake. Amazon has "built an entire business model based on tax avoidance," said Assembly tax committee Chairman Charles Calderon (D-Montebello). The state Senate approved the legislation Thursday as part of a deficit-reduction package, and it is expected to pass the Assembly as well. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #4 Disapproves |
| Posted by: DMFD 2010-02-21 17:43 |
| #3 Amazon has "built an entire business model based on tax avoidance," said Assembly tax committee Chairman Charles Calderon (D-Montebello). And so has all of the industry and manufacturing that has moved overseas. I really can't imagine why. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-02-21 11:23 |
| #2 yep - my Aunt lives in Fernley, NV, which was a sleepy agricultural town about 28 miles northeast of Reno. Was, as in, not anymore. Amazon built a regional distribution warehousing complex there and now employs about 80% of the new residents. Residents that bought new houses, shop at new stores... Amazon will never put a foot down nor dollar in CA's treasury. Our own CA bastards have made the state so unfriendly to business.... Now there's a throw em all out movement I could get behind |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-02-21 09:34 |
| #1 " The U.S. Supreme Court has finally spoken on the issues in two cases that will have far-reaching and long-term effects on our state and local tax scheme. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 5/26/92, addressed sales and use taxes, and Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr., Co., 6/19/92, addressed corporate net income. Quill involved an out-of-state mail order company's obligation to collect sales or use tax for goods sold in North Dakota, Wrigley involved the limits of PL 86-272, in conferring immunity from Wisconsin state net income taxes based on mere solicitation of goods by out-of-state sellers. In Quill, the Court held that the Commerce Clause prohibited a state from imposing an obligation on an out-of-state mail order company (without any physical presence in the state) to collect sales or use tax on goods sold to in-state residents. Advertising and direct mail solicitation were not "doing business" for sales or use tax purposes. A physical presence within the state was needed to provide the nexus required for the state to impose an obligation to collect ,ales and use tax on the company; economic presence was not enough." - source Amazon just has to dump any of its affiliated, as opposed to general, suppliers in California. That'll help business and employment. Keep your neighbors employed California. Nevada will love you. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-02-21 08:41 |