Amazon Prevails In State Sales Tax Dispute, Thus Far

snsh writes "A US judge has ruled for Amazon.com (PDF) against North Carolina's request to turn over the names of its customers to state tax officials. The ruling was focused on privacy grounds, so the state can still re-request less detailed sales data which does not identify items purchased." Reader arbitraryaardvark adds a link to The Volokh Conspiracy's take on the decision.

Comments

Good for us Sellers

[commodore64_love]

The outcome of this case affects not just Amazon, but also its sellers.

"No taxation without representation" is the principle. Why should I be subject to taxation by a foreign government (Carolina) when I have no voice in their legislature? It makes as little sense as saying a Frenchman should have to pay income tax to the Polish government. My allegiance is to MD and US..... any other governments have zero authority over me.

Re:Good for us Sellers

[Zironic]

Sure they don't have any authority over you (unless your government says they do and extradites your ass) but they do have authority over anything you do in their territory, like transferring goods.

Re:Good for us Sellers

[Anonymous Coward]

"No taxation without representation" is the principle. Why should I be subject to taxation by a foreign government (Carolina) when I have no voice in their legislature?

No, this principle is that one state may not tax the residents & businesses of another state, or force the residents & businesses of another state to comply with its laws.

Re:Good for us Sellers

[cowboy76Spain]

The outcome of this case affects not just Amazon, but also its sellers.

"No taxation without representation" is the principle. Why should I be subject to taxation by a foreign government (Carolina) when I have no voice in their legislature? It makes as little sense as saying a Frenchman should have to pay income tax to the Polish government. My allegiance is to MD and US..... any other governments have zero authority over me.

Nonsense.

The taxes are paid by the customers, not by the sellers. As the customers reside (and purchase) in the state, they must pay.

Notice also that TFS does not say anything like that... it just says that the state has no right to know if someone bought "Alice in Wonderland" or "How to make home bombs" or "Meth cooking for dummies". I think it is a good point to defend, but the issue of taxation itself has not been reviewed, as it is emphasized in the summary.

Also, I'd like to play a little with your "No taxation without representation". Are you suggesting that when a convinted felon loses his/her right to vote, s/he also loses his/her duty to pay taxes? Maybe crime pays, after all.

So... any comments other than "I do not like to pay taxes"?

Re:Good for us Sellers

[redhog]

Why should convicted felons lose the right to vote? What really is the point? Once the sentence is served, the convict should be considered a free man again, with the same rights and responsibilities. If that is deemed inappropriate, he should still be in prison. Why have second class citizenship?

Re:Good for us Sellers

[commodore64_love]

>>>No, this principle is that one state may not tax the residents & businesses of another state, or force the residents & businesses of another state to comply with its laws.

No?
Isn't that what "no taxation without representation" means?
Residents of other states have no voice in NC's legislature.
Therefore NC has no authority over them.

Re:Good for us Sellers

[nedlohs]

How exactly does whether Amazon has to send details of NC customers to the NC government affect sellers? And how does it have anything to do with you being subject to taxation?

Sure NC is trying to do that, but this particular ruling has nothing to do with it at all.

Re:Good for us Sellers

[gtall]

Just to be a prick, if you are a firm retail stores in 50 states, you must keep up with 50 state laws. Internet retailers are no different. We have computers to figure out the tax, take the money from the credit card companies, and pay the internet retailers' current tax bill. I admit it will cost them some money to get the changes in their systems which will handle the state taxes. The real problem is not going to be places like Amazon which can afford the expense. The real problem will be Ma and Pop internet sales. This will be a new problem since Ma and Pop previously were very local.

Requiring states to keep up with the deluge of data is also an expense to be born by the taxpayers as the states' systems will need to be upgraded. And it will be a continuing expense since they'll then have to keep records of every internet retail transaction. New internet stores pop up and go bankrupt all the time, that will also make things more complicated.

Between the two sets of problems, I tend to think the first is easier to solve. And I don't think it is an answer to say that no internet sales tax should be charged because it puts brick and mortar stores at a disadvantage. Also, many states have their finances built in part around sales taxes.

Another way to go is for the Federal Government to institute country-wide sales tax for internet purchases. Then it must disburse the proceeds among the states according to some formula. Maybe use the states' current tax rates to apportion the pie. That would at least centralize the problem...and open more political problems. But there's a solution to that too, shoot the politicians.

Re:Good for us Sellers

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to get my copy of the Dresden Files without too much hassle. Is that so wrong?

If "without too much hassle" means "without paying the proper taxes in my own home state", then yes, that is wrong. Unlike amazon, which is indeed not represented and thus has a case for arguing against being taxed, YOU are, so if you don't like it, write to your local MP, send letters to the newspapers, whatever - but don't just arbitrarily decide to not pay the taxes you're legally required to pay and then come whining when you might have to pay after all at a later date.

Re:Good for us Sellers

[tompaulco]

...I don't think it is an answer to say that no internet sales tax should be charged because it puts brick and mortar stores at a disadvantage. Also, many states have their finances built in part around sales taxes.
Brick and mortars already have a disadvantage of having to maintain inventory and an expensive storefront. Lack of Internet sales tax would not be an issue to them if people would pay their use tax.It's not the internet creating the problem, it is the citizens.
It is not some company in Iowa's responsibility to make sure that I pay my Oklahoma Use Tax. That is Oklahoma's responsibility.
The big problem is that it would cost more money to make sure people paid their Use Tax then they would actually receive from Use Tax. That is why they haven't been rigorously enforcing it. But if they can get some other poor shmoe who has no representation in this state to collect it for them, then they are all for it.

Re:Good for us Sellers

[tompaulco]

They are not taxing YOU, idiot, they want to tax your customers in NC territory which they are completely in the right to do...
That is correct, and I encourage them to do so, but they can't ask me to collect that tax for them because I am not subject to their laws. Now, if they were to allow me to keep part of that sales tax to compensate for my effort in keeping track of their laws, then that would be a matter. Something on the order of 500% would be appropriate, to deal with all of the taxing districts in their state.

Re:Good for us Sellers

[Anonymous Coward]

. They are crimes against the society as a whole and the norms and ideals it upholds. By committing crimes of this type, you are saying you no longer wish to be part of this society and, as such, you no longer have the right to the privilege that is voting.

So, what you're saying is that punishment is eternal, that forgiving and/or forgetting is impossible, and that noone deserves a second chance? I frankly disagree.

That said, you didn't address the original point, either: if anything, you strengthened it. If, as you claim, convicted felons are not part of society anymore (which appears to be your justification for denying them the right to vote), then why should they, seeing as they are not part of society, be required to pay taxes?

Because they benefit from the things that taxes pay for, you say, like schools and hospitals and the police (yes, even convicted felons do!), and firefighters and so on, you say? Fair enough, but if they are affected by these, using the services they provide, and funding them, then in every meaningful sense of the word, these people ARE part of society.

Re:Good for us Sellers

[BlueStrat]

...over time, the more regulatory and statutory hurdles businesses and individuals have to negotiate in order to go online will destroy a lot of the freedom and openness that made the Internet so fertile a place for speech and innovation in the first place.

If you happen to be a Progressive/Fabian Socialist as many on the Left in US politics and the current administration are, this is a desired design-target result/feature.

Strat

Re:Ammend the constitution already!

[dakameleon]

Amend the Constitution? Inter-state federally administered taxes?! Good luck getting that through in the current political climate.

Re:Wait! Don't tech companies love Big Brother?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Because see, the way we actually track public opinion in this country is by having elections.

Not true. We also track public opinion via Citizens' calls to the Congressional representatives. In October 2008 the phones were overloaded with citizens saying, "Vote No on the bailout bill," and it passed anyway. Then the same thing happened again in the week prior to the Healthcare Reform Bill ("vote no") and it passed anyway. The calls were approximately 75% and 70% against these bills.

So the previous poster is correct. The Democrat-supermajority Congress is ignoring the constituents - you might as well not bother calling, because they won't listen anyway.

Re:Wait! Don't tech companies love Big Brother?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>Because see, the way we actually track public opinion in this country is by having elections.

Not true. We also track public opinion via Citizens' calls to the Congressional representatives. In October 2008 the phones were overloaded with citizens saying, "Vote No on the bailout bill," and it passed anyway. Then the same thing happened again in the week prior to the Healthcare Reform Bill ("vote no") and it passed anyway. The calls were approximately 75% and 70% against these bills.

So the previous poster is correct. The Democrat-supermajority Congress is ignoring the constituents - you might as well not bother calling, because they won't listen anyway.

No, all you just proved is a majority of the callers were people opposed to the bill. Completely different from a majority of the people being opposed to the bill. The people who are happy with the state of affairs rarely call anyone.

Re:What on earth are you babbling about?

[commodore64_love]

>>>what on earth are you babbling about?

Assuming the court allowed states to collect this info, I would be required to keep a list of all my customers in 2011, separate them, and mail-out 51 letters to the 50 states plus DC. That would require several days worth of labor on my part, and that is "taxing". I should not be taxed by governments where I have no representation in their legislature.