iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Amazon Sales Tax Dispute: Connecticut Gets Tough With Internet Retailer

By SUSAN HAIGH   10/09/11 03:39 PM ET  AP

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Connecticut officials are not giving up on requiring Internet sellers to collect state sales taxes, despite signs from online retailer Amazon.com that it has no immediate plans to abide by the state's new Internet tax law.

State officials confirmed to The Associated Press that Amazon wrote the Department of Revenue Services this month, saying the company is not obligated to abide by the law because it does not have a physical presence in Connecticut. Amazon contends that by not having a physical presence, it does not have to collect and remit taxes to the state, a protection of the U.S. Constitution.

Connecticut plans to press Amazon for the taxes the state believes it should have collected at least during the month or so when the new law was in effect and Amazon still had affiliations with websites in Connecticut through its Amazon Associates Program. Amazon severed those ties in June.

The state could expect up to $9.4 million a year in additional revenue if remote sellers, including Amazon, complied with the new law, according to an estimate by the General Assembly's Office of Fiscal Analysis. That estimate was based on data from a comparable New York law.

Connecticut officials believe Amazon is obligated in other ways, as well.

"All we have to do is get in the door. Once we get in the door, there are some more opportunities that come," DRS Commissioner Kevin Sullivan said. Connecticut plans to evaluate some other connections Amazon has with people in the state and start building a case that Sullivan predicted will ultimately be decided in court. He said he didn't know how much money the state could expect to collect from the month or so that's in question.

"They're not fighting against a burden on their ability to do business in the state of Connecticut," Sullivan said. "They're fighting to protect an advantage against everybody else who's doing business in the state of Connecticut."

Cash-strapped states across the country are grappling with how to capture the sales tax revenues that go uncollected from online purchases, with at least six states enacting laws similar to Connecticut's as of June, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. NCSL estimates that all states are losing $23 billion each year, a figure that climbs annually as more people shop on the Internet instead of in their local stores, said Neil Osten, director of NCSL's Washington, D.C., office.

Connecticut, he said, is estimated to lose $152 million a year from uncollected sales taxes from Internet retailers that don't currently collect the tax.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who pushed for the Internet tax law as part of his budget plan to fill a $3.3 billion deficit, said he's committed to the cause for the long haul and believes Connecticut and other states will eventually win the battle.

"This is our initial request, their initial response. This has got miles to go before we sleep," Malloy said in an interview. "I also believe there are trends at play in the United States that are going to move in the right direction to dissipate the unfair advantage that these kinds of retailers have over job-producers in our state."

Multiple messages seeking comment from representatives from Seattle-based Amazon were not answered.

The Department of Revenue Services denied a Freedom of Information request made by the AP for copies of correspondence between the department and Amazon regarding the state's new tax law, claiming the letter falls under the state's confidentiality statutes and therefore cannot be released to the public.

Sullivan said DRS also sent a letter informing the Utah-based O.co, also known as Overstock.com, another large online retailer, that it must comply with the state's new law. The company's general counsel, however, told the AP that he does not believe O.co needs to comply after ending business relationships with Connecticut-based online advertising affiliates once the law was passed.

"By severing those ties, we effectively severed any sort of obligation," said Mark Griffin, Overstock's general counsel. "We don't have boots on the ground in Connecticut and trying to say that we do because we advertise through Connecticut affiliates – in order to avoid that argument, we'll simply terminate those opportunities in Connecticut."

Griffin said he could "promise (DRS) a very healthy and robust legal challenge" if the state tries to recoup what he called "minuscule" sales taxes that may have been generated when there was still a relationship with the affiliates and the law was in effect.

New York was the first state to pass a version of the "Amazon law" two years ago. Other states, including North Carolina, Rhode Island, Illinois and Arkansas followed suit, prompting Amazon to cancel its ties with affiliates in those states as well, with the exception of New York, where Amazon is challenging the law in court.

California has been one of the most recent battlegrounds in the fight over Internet sales tax collection. That state enacted a law that tried to boost tax collections by expanding the definition of "physical presence" in the state to include marketing affiliates, who steer online customers to the retail site, and to sister companies. Amazon's Silicon Valley subsidiary developed the Kindle electronic book reader.

Amazon initially called the law illegal and spent more than $5 million to gather signatures for a 2012 ballot referendum to repeal the law. But a compromise was later reached between state lawmakers and Amazon, and signed by the governor, that delayed the expanded online tax collections until at least September 2012, giving Amazon and other retailers more time to lobby Congress for a federal law that would authorize states to require sellers to collect sales taxes of goods to in-state customers regardless of seller's location.

"Perhaps California will serve as something of a model that will usher in more agreements between Amazon and other states," said Carol Kokinis-Graves, an attorney and a senior editor for the information service provider CCH, which is based in Riverwoods, Ill.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam and Amazon announced Thursday that the online retailer had agreed to begin collecting sales taxes in that state in 2014. It was part of an agreement to build two more distribution centers in the state. Amazon will be required to begin collecting sales taxes in January 2016 under a recent law in South Carolina, where the company is also building a distribution center.

Kokinis-Graves said it's possible Connecticut will succeed in getting Amazon to pay the tax for those purchases made during that small window of time when it still had arrangements with its affiliates and the law was in place. She said it remains to be seen whether prolonged litigation, which would be costly for both sides, will be necessary.

"Amazon is fighting this on many state fronts. The entire controversy has pushed the issue to the forefront and has, perhaps, become the impetus behind the potential passage of federal legislation," she said.

A group of Democrats in Congress led by Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois introduced the Main Street Fairness Act earlier this year after receiving support from Amazon for the latest version of the federal legislation. It authorizes states that agree to simplify and unify many of their sales tax rules to require remote sellers to collect the tax. Currently, 24 states have passed legislation to streamline their tax rules. Connecticut is not one of them.

At the time, Amazon's Vice President for Global Public Policy Paul Misener said the online retailer has "long supported a simple, nationwide system of state and local sales tax collection, evenhandedly applied to all sellers, no matter their business model, location, or level of remote sales."

Griffin, from Overstock, is wary of the federal legislation, which he said is an effort by the big retailers with brick-and-mortar stores that want to put Internet competition out of business.

He said the legislation, in its current form, is unfair. Griffin said there are 7,000 to 10,000 taxing districts across the country, all of which have their own rules and tax holiday. Despite efforts to unify them, he claims it will still be a nightmare for online retailers to comply.

NCSL first came up with the streamlined tax agreement idea more than 10 years ago with the National Governors Association and has been encouraging states to join. Osten believes the legislation has a good chance of passage now and credits the budget-cutting that's being considered by the new deficit-cutting, so-called super committee in Washington.

States are facing possible deep cuts in federal aid. Passing the legislation would allow them to collect sales tax from Internet transactions to raise money to fill those holes. Osten said that could be seen as a good political move for members of Congress who want to return home with some good news for their states.

"I think we have a bill now," he said, "that everybody can agree with."

Griffin disagrees.

"I don't think in this timeframe imposing new taxes is appetizing for anyone," he said. "So I think it's a loser."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

Filed by Ramona Emerson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 103
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KrazyJay
09:57 PM on 10/11/2011
Everyone's picking on poor Connecticut. The truth is MANY states are doing this, red and blue ... and Amazon has been losing the battle. Even "anti-tax" Rick Perry did it, and now Texans pay sales tax on their amazon.com purchases (of course, he didn't make a press release about it, so the Tea Partiers are likely not to know about it).
07:04 PM on 10/11/2011
all amazon has to do is bring up the 1992 decision, Quill v. North Dakota

and if amazon whats to get really cunning then thy can say sen some people bay from a factory over seas that in also violates some international trade agreements
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ringmaster
I know I spelled it wrong.
03:35 PM on 10/11/2011
Last week Amazon signed a deal with the corrupt Tennessee General Assembly to collect sales tax from Tennessee citizens in exchange for a huge chunk of corporate welfare.
03:34 PM on 10/11/2011
This is primarily a fight between big box retailers like Wal-Mart, trying to increase taxes on its online competitors -- a market they effectively lost to the likes of Amazon because of early-on incompetence in recognizing the future of the internet.

These big box retailers have brick and mortar stores that use the resources of the communities in which they are located -- the streets that lead to their stores; the police and fire that provide protection -- this is why they pay local taxes. Their "fight" is entirely disingenious: you can bet your bottom dollar they would not be doing this if they had established their online business more successfully.
06:22 PM on 10/11/2011
In most cases Wal-Mart keeps the sales tax it collects, and does not pay local taxes.
03:15 PM on 10/11/2011
"All we have to do is get in the door. Once we get in the door, there are some more opportunities that come," DRS Commissioner Kevin Sullivan said.

Wow. He refers to taxes as opportunities. I'm all for a fair tax system, but when bureaucrats say things like this, I get concerned.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Karelh
When fact is fiction and TV reality
09:21 AM on 10/11/2011
I find it interesting, we claim to be a nation of laws, but how much energy is put into finding ways to break them? The current law states certain items purchased in said state are subject to a sales tax, everyone is required to pay it. If you don't like the law, elect officials to change the law. For one company to try to exempt itself while other cannot gives it an unfair competative advantage.

Personnally, I do not use Amazon. I only buy local. At the end of the day, cheap is expensive to us all.
12:57 PM on 10/11/2011
"At the end of the day, cheap is expensive to us all."

So true and well said.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:31 PM on 10/11/2011
The internet completely upends what "purchased in" means. The transaction has many components: the buyer is at one desk, the selling website may be hosted at a completely different location, the company doing the selling may be at a third location, the fulfillment center could be another location, and the ship to address also at another location.

I'm in California right now and I place an order to this shop in Nevada for some hot sauce and asked them to ship me a case. I'm charged the taxes where the transaction was wrung up along with some shipping charge. How is an internet transaction any different than if I pick up the phone. When I place an internet order, how is it substantively different than placing an order using my phone? Whether I order airline tickets over the phone or through the airline's website, the location on my credit card bill is the location of the charging company, not my location.

It seems like if there is supposed to be a "fair" allocation of taxes, you should probably treat this like any other remote transaction, where the place something is purchased from is the place that taxation occurs.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Karelh
When fact is fiction and TV reality
02:13 AM on 10/12/2011
In Amazon's case they do neither. Their whole game is to skirt collecting any sales tax, either that which would apply at shipping location or using location, thus making their products 5 to 8% cheaper than the local brick and mortar store.

The main issue is the tax laws have not really caught up with the nuance of the internet. Commercially speaking, any compay buying product pay the sales tax at the using location (if the items is subject to sales tax, typically something that is a raw material is not subject to sales tax). If the seller does not collect the sales tax, then the buyer accrues it and is responsible to submit payment directly to the state. Additionally, some companies have direct pay permits in some states, where they determine what is subject to sales tax and pay accordingly and suppliers do not charge them tax (you supply the supplier a copy of your permit for their records).

The words fair and tax are rarely used in the same sentence. Bottom line, the whole tax code system in this country is ripe for a rewrite at all levels.
04:28 AM on 10/11/2011
Hey! Sales tax is obsolete. Figure out another way to make everyone a tax collector.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stephen a Fazekas
10:01 PM on 10/10/2011
CT never saw a tax it didnt love.
CT never saw a Temp tax that they didnt love so much permanent
Also CT is good at increasing college tuition and then putting that increase in the states general fund
Another thing they are good at is a special tax for sick kids or what ever and then dump it in the general fund
its a dead state suffering from a brain drain
03:17 PM on 10/11/2011
I was a little disturbed by their description of taxes as "opportunities."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stephen a Fazekas
08:37 PM on 10/11/2011
CT is claiming its citizens must pay taxes for all purchases.

Even those out of state and country.

So lets say on vacation you buy 1000 bucks of crap out of the country.
if you dont pay them the 63.50 dollars and they find out you can get arrested.
06:26 PM on 10/10/2011
And let's say that CT prevails and starts to collect this tax, will it lower it's other taxes so that their bottom line as to revenue collection is the same or are they looking for an unconscionable windfall.

When it comes to state taxes, CT is the worst, which is surprising since, up until a few years ago, they didn't even have a state income tax.
02:09 PM on 10/11/2011
1991 wasn't just 'a few years ago' Mike. I'm not sure why you say they're the worst of state income taxes, since according to http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.pdf they appear to be about average in what they tax and how much.

I live in Connecticut. It sucks here in so many other ways, maybe the taxes just don't seem that bad to me.
06:22 PM on 10/10/2011
No one likes to pay the regressive sales taxes.

And to be frank what business does one state have in taxing a purchase that takes place in another state?

CT needs to stand down. As it is CT is one of the worst states out there for income taxes. They tax everything, all pension money with no deductions, out of state pensions, money earned in other places. I hope they lose this one.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:41 PM on 10/10/2011
How about that new tablet computer from India that costs $22. I wonder what the mark up is on the cheap plastic tablet from Amazon...

"because it does not have a physical presence in Connecticut. Amazon contends that by not having a physical presence" Seems like Amazon has turned every computer with an internet connection into a store. I know of small businesses and even big box retailers that have been unable to compete with AMazon's tax evasion advantage. Its unrealistic and should be fixed. Its not the 1970s.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Obama cares about all of U.S.
08:05 PM on 10/10/2011
Absolutely correct.
Well said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoeBlough
The Horror. . .The Horror. . .
02:42 PM on 10/11/2011
What's wrong with the 1970's?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:57 PM on 10/11/2011
pre internet policy is being stretched to cover an e-commerce world. its failing. for every virtuous cycle theres a complimentary death spiral. as super aggregated centralized e-commerce devours brick and morter it carves a hole in the local economy and thus the local community.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wilray
50,000 Screaming Fans (Ignore that other number)
03:26 PM on 10/10/2011
Ebay had revenue of over $9 bill last year. I don't even know what that means in terms of actual sales. Yet, I haven't heard a peep about how they are going to collect sales tax from Ebay. Now I am sure someone will point out that Ebay isn't the actual seller. I'm not sure why that would matter we are still talking about billions of dollars of sales that isn't tax. Ebay also has affiliates, and often what you buy on Ebay is in competition with what you could have bought at Amazon. There are many people who participate in the Ebay miracle - persons whose only livelihood is selling via Ebay. Some of those persons are multi-millionaires.
photo
Pandoras Folly
This Micro-bio is of legendary quality
02:45 PM on 10/10/2011
I know it would take a bite out of the money they earn from our city, we have 10% tax rate.
photo
Liberals Are Intolerant
fiscal conservative, social libertarian
02:13 PM on 10/10/2011
Amazon and Overstock have legitimate reasons to fight the collection of state and local sales taxes. The sales tax laws are clear- you have to have a brick and mortar presence in the respective state or municipality.

How are they supposed to collect and then remit taxes to over 6,000 jurisdictions? Think about that... combined with shipping costs, it will hinder online sales and actually swing the balance back towards brick and mortar businesses. In my area, amazon.com seems to be the only place hiring workers right now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Obama cares about all of U.S.
02:41 PM on 10/10/2011
LOL, another low tech Republican.

Software makes it very easy to track and pay State taxes.

Why should e-retailers be given an advantage over Mom & Pop.

The fact that local businesses aren't hiring only disproves your argument.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:08 PM on 10/10/2011
Software makes it easy to calculate state taxes. Keeping track of taxes is not quite so simple.

1) To begin with, various states exempt categories of buyers. Resellers, for instance, are exempt from paying sales taxes in a number of states because they're supposed to be collecting taxes from the true end-buyer. You would need some mechanism to determine who was considered a reseller and who wasn't in every state.

2) Taxes are not only charged by the state but also at the county and city level. You would need someone to keep track of the tax laws of every city and county in the country, since their governments can make changes at any time they please.

3) You would also need to identify the county of each purchasing (or shipping?) address and figure out what areas are in unincorporated areas so as to exempt them from the relevant taxes. The "city" on the destination address isn't sufficient since unincorporated areas can be given postal cities but are not actually subject to the jurisdiction of the city.

So, do tell, what software package are you aware of that does all these things? And what do you do about all the small internet retailers who sell stuff over the internet? Do they need now to hire entire accounting teams to keep this software updated? What about the average ebay (or similar) seller?
photo
Liberals Are Intolerant
fiscal conservative, social libertarian
05:37 PM on 10/10/2011
Also, I am an industrial engineer, so I am certainly not low-tech. I deal with enterprise software as part of my job (although it's not my focus).

I think you are missing the fact that not just Amazon.com and Staples need to meet your envisioned sales tax law. All the thousands of other smaller operations need to do it too. Now they have to pay for software, all for a tax that they are not directly paying. You probably have to pay a service to process the actual payments (not just to the 45 states, but also the thousands of municipalities), and that means more profit gone. Software is great but it still involves a lot of money and time. Plus it has to integrate with your website, so the customer views the taxes real time. The bill starts adding up. Again, it is the consumer paying the tax, but the business has to pay to process it.
10:21 PM on 10/10/2011
Amazon cut a deal with South Carolina and negotiated a waiver from collecting and remitting taxes in exchange for creating 1000 warehouse jobs. While Amazon has every right to negotiate the best deal for its business the state should issue the same waiver to all businesses in South Carolina. Otherwise the state officials are providing an unfair competitive advantage to Amazon. Take a look at the campaign contributions and one may even call it bribes. As long as the states will undercut one another they will be played and Amazon will win.
01:56 PM on 10/10/2011
>>>>>"....giving Amazon and other retailers more time to lobby Congress for a federal law that would authorize states to require sellers to collect sales taxes of goods to in-state customers regardless of seller's location."

Can someone please explain this to me? Sounds like Amazon is trying to lobby Congress to pass a law to do the very thing it wants to avoid, which is to give states the authority to collect taxes from Amazon and other online-retailers for residents of that particular state who order online from out-of-state retailers.
photo
Liberals Are Intolerant
fiscal conservative, social libertarian
02:13 PM on 10/10/2011
You are not the only one who saw that sentence was worded poorly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wilray
50,000 Screaming Fans (Ignore that other number)
02:33 PM on 10/10/2011
As it stands now, the Supreme Court has ruled that a business that doesn't have a physical presence in another state is not required to collect sales tax for that state. States have used Amazon affiliates (properly advertising) as an excuse to claim nexus and force Amazon and other large etailers to collect the tax. Small etailers and those without in-house affiliate program would still avoid tax. Amazon is asking that things be truly equitable and not allow any etailers to avoid collecting the tax. I assume that would include casual etailers and even those selling via sites like Ebay and Etsy. So Amazon is saying that the field be truly level. Amazon is also asking that the taxes be streamlined. You have 50 states, yet 10,000 taxing districts. For etailers it would be great if there were only 1 district per state. Even so, small etailers may find it easier to come under the umbrella of Amazon and let Amazon handle that aspect. With forcing all etailers to collect the tax, Amazon may grow even bigger. So all those who thought they could punish Amazon, they may in fact give it a boost. I don't think this fight was so much about the little guy versus Amazon as it was about the states and large big box stores like Walmart against Amazon. When it shakes out Amazon will still maintain their advantage which includes savings, efficiency, and a vast array of products.