Amazon Pulling Out of Texas Over $269 Million Tax Bill

ralphart writes with this excerpt from the Dallas Morning News: "As a result of an ongoing tax dispute with Texas, Amazon.com has decided to take its ball and go home. The online retailer said Thursday that it would shutter its Irving distribution facility April 12 and cancel plans to hire as many as 1,000 additional workers rather than pay Texas what the state says is owed in uncollected sales tax. Texas wants $269 million from Seattle-based Amazon in past-due sales tax. It sent the bill to the company last October." We've discussed the online retailer's tax battles with other states in the past.

Comments

Texas Budget Deficit

[eldavojohn]

While they're by no means the only state with budget problems, it is kind of coincidental that we're seeing this from Texas in the midst of a budget deficit. With $10 billion in lost revenue, they're starting to get creative like demanding university offer a $10k bachelors degree. Oh the abuse of the educational system, both lower and higher education. It's probably going to come down to just cuts across the board. My friends from Texas have often bragged about it but Texas doesn't have income tax so it's sort of asking a lot to do all this on 6.25% sales tax. You can make promises like "no new taxes" and "more tax cuts" but it looks like they'll run Amazon out of town on this one. Well, they were right that taxes hurt businesses! Bye bye Amazon!

Re:Texas Budget Deficit

[AK Marc]

Rick Perry has been "in power" for more than 10 years now, and this is part of a budget shortfall that requires massive cuts. My question is, why hasn't there been cutting the last 9 years?

Personally, I think there is a class of Republicans who hate government enough to get in power, purposefully screw up, and force things like this because of the damage they deliberately inflict and then blame on "big government" which they created in the first place. He runs up a bill for billions, then cuts education and social programs left and right, leaving in subsidies for the rich. It wasn't an accident, it wasn't an unforeseen shortfall, it was deliberate sabotage in order to force hard choices while they are in power to remake it in their image.

Why did Bush push through NCLB? Because he knew that unfunded federal mandates over state matters was the core of the big-government Republican image. He knows that NCLB will shackle school districts, increasing cost and wasting resources. He knows NCLB will harm children all over the country. And he's happy to hurt the children. Why? Because when the education system comes crashing down, the vouchers he really wants will then look like a good idea.

Not that I'm trying to imply the Democrats are any better. I'm just pointing out the "capitalist" Republicans are massively supporting socialism. Take from everyone and give to the needy businesses (and every business is needy). And the small government Republicans are passing massive sweeping legislation to take away states rights and purposefully harm children to further push taxing everyone to pay for religious schools with direct government funding of religious organizations (as nearly all private schools are religious).

And for anyone wondering, I was born in TX and lived there under GWB (and a few before him) and left just after (but not because) Rick got the job.

Texas asked for it in the beginning

[Stumbles]

Amazon just out of the blue did not decide to start operations in Texas. No, they had incentives, you know like tax cuts and the like. This is not an uncommon thing. The point here is this; many states have decided to suck the dicks of companies just so they will bring "tons-o-jobs" to their area. Companies have gotten used to this notion. The fault falls squarely on the states shoulders by allowing companies to expect no taxes.

Re:They still owe texas money.

[Mr. Slippery]

Texas needs to cut some sort of compromise deal with Amazon or they will lose out in the long run

No, if every state stood up to parasites like Amazon, they'd go out of business, leaving the field clear for thousands of small businesses to spring up. That's the long-term win, not kowtowing to corporate bastards.

Re:Enough of this

[natehoy]

IANAL, but I've done a lot of tax programming for major retailers over the years.

While I agree that sales taxes are ridiculous and hard and all that, I feel it's important to point out that Amazon actually has a presence in Texas, and therefore when they sell product to Texans they actually do need to be collecting sales tax and remitting it to the State of Texas. This is commonly known as "nexus" in sales/use tax circles. This is what Texas is asking for - sales/use tax from sales to Texans from Amazon (who has a presence in Texas and is therefore subject to the laws of Texas with regards to their sales in Texas).

If Amazon was being told they needed to collect on behalf of, for example, Maine, they have the absolute right to tell Maine's comptroller to go straight to hell. In fact, as a citizen of Maine, I'd love to be able to listen to that conversation. I'll never be able to tell our comptroller to go to hell, so it'd be great to be able to hear someone else say it.

Amazon has no presence here in Maine, therefore they have no obligation to follow Maine's regulations surrounding sales/use taxes, which are intrastate law, not interstate. The sales/use tax on things I buy from Amazon is my responsibility to track as a Mainer doing business with a company outside the state, and I owe that money to Maine at the end of the year (and we have a system called "Alternative Use Tax" where I pay a small stipend based on income tax to cover any incidental out-of-state purchases I happen to make if I don't want to track them all, which I use).

But Amazon has a presence in Texas. In the same way that the company I currently work for has to start collecting and remitting State sales taxes every time we open our first store in each State (or call center, or warehouse, or business office, or whatever), Amazon really does owe that sales tax to the State of Texas, whether they have been collecting it from their customers or not.

Now, they can certainly choose to pull out of Texas in order to avoid having to collect taxes there, that's within their rights. But they still owe the State of Texas $269 million (plus whatever other sales they make before they finish the pullout), because they were supposed to be collecting that money from their customers who live in Texas for the entire time they've had a presence there.

Note to Amazon: Please come to Maine. We could use the jobs. I'll happily pay sales tax on purchases made from you.

Re:Oregon does not have sales tax.

[Technician]

Oregon does not have sales tax. They do have an inventory tax. The inventory tax is not only on your product, but on your furnishings and equipment. States to provide incentives to attract businesses. A couple of the largest businesses in the state are Nike and Intel. Nike distributes shoes mostly made overseas. Their inventory is relatively low and their inventory value is relatively low.

On the other hand, Intel does manufacturing in Oregon as well as a good portion of R & D. If Intel was taxed at the same rate for inventory as Nike, they would not be in Oregon at all. The equipment for manufacturing IC's is several million dollars each. Intel negotiates with Oregon for a break on the inventory tax and brings to the table the rates they pay on other locations such as New Mexico, Ireland, Israel, etc. Oregon is well aware if they didn't offer this incentive, Intel would no longer be in Oregon.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/10/oregon_intel_inside.html

Oregon is well aware that Intel contributes way more to the state of Oregon than Nike. Trying to "Tax them fairly" will result in the loss of Intel in Oregon. Intel is by no means getting no taxes. Intel contributes heavily to the local infrastructure and education.

It sounds to me like Texas has attracted Amazon with a temporary deal and it has expired. Amazon has not been able to extend the deal. Now the party is over.

Amazon may owe Texas a quarter billion dollars, but this is the last year. They are not remaining as Texas expected them to.
Texas expected they were too big to fail. Surprise..

Re:Normally

[Nadaka]

I accept your rejection of the implicit assumptions. Many people make those implicit assumptions. But I have reason behind my perspective.

The accumulation of wealth is supported and enabled by a well run society respecting personal property. The wealthy are those who reap the greatest benefits of society as a whole. Progressive taxes are (or at least can be) fair for this reason.

Regressive taxes place an onerous burden upon those least capable of bearing it. Taken far enough and it recreates the state of slavery where a person no longer works for their own gain, but for the gain of a master.

When you add categories for exception to a flat tax based on necessity, you are creating a system that is in effect progressive in relation to income. It is merely a matter of implementation.

Personally I would prefer a limited exemption flat income tax (including all income, capital gains, etc). Exemptions would be limited to a fixed multiple of household size.

Re:Enough of this

[painandgreed]

While I agree that sales taxes are ridiculous and hard and all that, I feel it's important to point out that Amazon actually has a presence in Texas, and therefore when they sell product to Texans they actually do need to be collecting sales tax and remitting it to the State of Texas.

The main issue seems to be that the states are changing the definition of "presence", sometimes seemingly retroactively. It used to be if your headquarters was situated in the state, then people buying from you needed to pay income tax. Then it was if it was shipped from that state. Then if the company had any offices whatsoever, so even if Amazon had some offices serving only internal customers, then they would have to collect tax on everything bought by the state. Now, states like NY and Texas are saying that if any company they are "partners" with are in the state, then the partner company has to collect tax. Amazon hires a company in NY to do some coding, then Amazon has to collect taxes on stuff bought by New Yorkers.

Really, this is all just mail order and things should have been settled and stabalized with Sears back in the days of the wild west. However, states are looking for more money and changing the agreements and telling companies to pray they don't change them any more.