Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Declines Case On Making Online Retailers Collect Sales Taxes
thomst writes "Robert Barnes of the Washington Post reports that the US Supreme Court has declined to hear petitions from Amazon.com and Overstock.com requesting that a decision by the New York State Supreme Court permitting that state's 2008 law requiring sales taxes be collected on Internet sales, even if the seller has no 'business presence' in New York. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that Amazon's relationship with third-party affiliates in the state that receive commissions for sending Web traffic its way satisfied the 'substantial nexus' necessary to force the company to collect taxes, and New York's Supreme Court had affirmed the ruling. The Federal high court's refusal to hear the petitions leaves the state law in effect, even though it appears to conflict with the Court's 1993 decision in Quill v. North Dakota."
Or consumers will just end up paying more, since more tax will be collected.
Why is it bad? Anything that even *leans* towards someone in state A having to pay taxes to, and which were legislated in, state B, is destructive to the very fabric of the states.
Yeah, but there isn't any of that in this case. The people paying taxes to state B are in state B. The question isn't even does someone/business in state A have to collect taxes for state B. The question is for a business like Amazon, what does it mean to "be" in a state.
This may be a bad decision, but your comment doesn't address why.
Last weekend, I saw someone walk into a brick and mortar store and using an iPhone app, take a picture and order the product on Amazon, after taking up a salesperson's time answering questions.
We can argue over whether there should be any sales tax at all, but I can't see how you can argue that some companies should have to pay it and others shouldn't.
You are welcome on my lawn.