Amazon's not here!
April 15, 2008 6:51 AM   Subscribe

 
So are they going to tax my membership to websites that would render me incapable of running for office?

I can only think of one politician in NY that considered that.
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 7:02 AM on April 15, 2008


New York already taxes internet sales in spirit, if not in deed. They're just trying to get internet sellers to collect the tax for them, now, with some weasely interpretations of "physical presence." Given that most people probably don't pay the full use tax on all their online purchases, though, this could make a dent in Amazon's sales. I've certainly made purchases from Amazon more than once just to save the 8.625% sales tax. Remove that advantage, and I'd have been more likely to just go down the block to Target.

Good thing I ordered that XBox last week.
posted by uncleozzy at 7:10 AM on April 15, 2008


For the lulz, Amazon should disaffiliate with anyone from New York.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 7:15 AM on April 15, 2008 [2 favorites]


Where can I get a cheap pitchfork online?
posted by cowbellemoo at 7:19 AM on April 15, 2008


New York state should read up on Quill Corp vs. North Dakota. Given the court's current makeup I don't see this having much chance of surviving litigation.
posted by aerotive at 7:20 AM on April 15, 2008


Taxing I can understand... but "try" internet purcahses? Try them for what?

Yeah, it should, of course, be "try to tax internet purchases". Unless, you know, enough people use the "try and tax" construct, in which languagehat will bless it and tell you that it's now part of the English language.** Which it probably is; I hear it all the time.

** And I begrudgingly agree. Except for "noo-ku-ler". I'm sorry, that's just... ew.

posted by LordSludge at 7:23 AM on April 15, 2008


It sounds like their argument is that Amazon's third-party sellers may have a physical presence in New York (like Strand books selling used books), so Amazon as a whole has a physical presence. That's a stretch.
posted by smackfu at 7:25 AM on April 15, 2008


Where can I get a cheap pitchfork online?

Right Here

There's something lost when they add cushioned grips, don't ya think?
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 7:25 AM on April 15, 2008


Well, these purchases are actually already taxable, it's just that you are supposed to be paying the tax directly to the state. I'm guessing that doesn't happen too much, though...
posted by patrick rhett at 7:30 AM on April 15, 2008


Makes sense to me. We're beyond the "incubation" phase when it was crucial to give online businesses an artificial leg up just so there would be /any/ internet retail. I think. Others will disagree.

If we want government that does things, it needs to be able to rely on the revenue streams that society has agreed it should have. This sorta-brick-and-mortar dodge is a bit weak, but presumably state governments have got to try a few different things before they settle on a model that works perfectly.
posted by gurple at 7:33 AM on April 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Sigh. Yet more taxes here in NY.
posted by josher71 at 7:33 AM on April 15, 2008


Remove that advantage, and I'd have been more likely to just go down the block to Target.

Great for people who have Targets right around the corner, not so great for those of us in New York City who order stuff online because we don't have big megastores right around the corner or cars. Oh well. They were going to figure out how to tax online purchases sooner or later. And as said above, it sounds like this one might not even stand.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:42 AM on April 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


not so great for those of us in New York City who order stuff online because we don't have big megastores right around the corner or cars

It's not like you won't be able to order online. You'll just be paying the tax you're supposed to have paid anyhow (just because nobody pays use tax doesn't mean it's not there). Which is inconvenient but, arguably, fair.

And the case cited above to dispute the validity is exactly the case New York is using to support its law. So who knows. I think it's a ridiculously broad interpretation of "physical presence," but maybe that's why I'm not a lawyer.
posted by uncleozzy at 7:49 AM on April 15, 2008


I believe it should be:

"NY State to try to tax Internet purchases."

To "try and tax" means to do two separate things.

Of course, ideally, it should be something like "New York State tries to tax Internet purchases."
posted by Lucy2Times at 7:52 AM on April 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Which is inconvenient but, arguably, fair.

I suppose, although I don't know that it's fair if only residents of one state have to do it. Not to mention that it would be pretty easy to have stuff shipped out of state, particularly in parts of NY where NJ and CT are just a hop, skip and a jump away.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:52 AM on April 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yeah, it should, of course, be "try to tax internet purchases". Unless, you know, enough people use the "try and tax" construct, in which languagehat will bless it and tell you that it's now part of the English language.** Which it probably is; I hear it all the time.

It's common and readily understood usage. It's also several hundred years old. If you want to wearily cede ground to it, you're a little late. Sniff at it in formal contexts all you like, but just try and stop it from being used by reasonable people in informal contexts and see what you get: snarky rebuttals.

posted by cortex at 7:53 AM on April 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


Consider my snarky rebuttal delivered.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:03 AM on April 15, 2008


in which languagehat will bless it and tell you that it's now part of the English language

Oh, so that's your game, eh? languagehat performs his anti-papal office and suddenly it's OK to tax me, click by click! You linguinists DISGUST me, what with your endless morphologising and diabolical phonetrickeries. And now your powers have extended to the basest usufruct, and profiting from my every prendre! Well, I'll hide my taxables in a miasma of ungrammatical gibberish: see you how like, assholes, it now!
posted by the quidnunc kid at 8:15 AM on April 15, 2008 [2 favorites]


Given the court's current makeup I don't see this having much chance of surviving litigation.

I think Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia all question the negative commerce clause. So, absent stare decisis, they would be inclined to overrule Quill and allow the NY tax. [Note that their concurring opinion in Quill upheld National Bellas Hess only on stare decisis grounds and made a point of saying they would not have revisited the logic of the decision.] Assuming Allito and Roberts are of a like mind (I don't know this to be the case), you might have 5 votes to overturn Quill in theory. Despite that inclination, I assume most, if not all, would uphold Quill on stare decisis grounds alone.
posted by probablysteve at 8:17 AM on April 15, 2008


This has come up before.
posted by mattbucher at 8:22 AM on April 15, 2008


I suppose, although I don't know that it's fair if only residents of one state have to do it.

Other states probably will if New York pulls it off.
posted by drezdn at 8:22 AM on April 15, 2008


Citizens of Kentucky, Kansas, North Dakota and Washington already have to pay sales tax on their Amazon purchases without strecthing Sales and Use tax laws. The fairness is not an issue for the consumer, but for Amazon. The cost of compliance is significant.

State income tax has long displaced the traditional nexus with an economic nexus. It isn't too much of a stretch for sales and use tax to follow this logic.

Of course, I'm pretty sure this transition will bear out my suspicion that an income tax is far more reasonable than a consumption tax when it comes to compliance issues.
posted by politikitty at 8:23 AM on April 15, 2008


We're beyond the "incubation" phase when it was crucial to give online businesses an artificial leg up just so there would be /any/ internet retail. I think. Others will disagree.

I'll disagree. New York isn't providing any services to Amazon, so why should Amazon pay taxes to NY? If anyone is going to collect sales taxes on purchases from Amazon, it should be the states where Amazon's physical facilities are located and that provide governmental services to Amazon. If those states have chosen not to impose sales tax, that's none of New York's business.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:29 AM on April 15, 2008


Ohio already has a use tax that you're supposed to pay for online or mail-order purchases. However, it's not very heavily enforced.

I'm sure everyone here doesn't like paying extra money for online purchases, but if there's a sales tax on buying things from the Gamestop store in the mall, why shouldn't there be for buying it from Gamestop online? Of course, the NY tax will come up against the supreme court, like probablysteve said, and I don't see widespread sales tax like this untill either the supreme court says it's OK or the US Congress passes a law to OK it.

To respond to ROU_Xenophobe, the argument is that without the roads and infrastructure (that the state pays for), selling and shipping goods to people would be impossible. Hence, a tax to support that infrastructure.
posted by demiurge at 8:35 AM on April 15, 2008


Other states probably will if New York pulls it off.

Exactly why I thought this was worth a post. If it had no conceivable effect on other states, I would have left it where I found it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:37 AM on April 15, 2008


...if there's a sales tax on buying things from the Gamestop store in the mall, why shouldn't there be for buying it from Gamestop online?

If there's a Gamestop in your local mall, you almost certainly have to pay any local sales tax at the online store, too.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:40 AM on April 15, 2008


Yes, I know, so what's the difference between paying tax to Amazon and paying tax to Gamestop just because they happen to have a store you can go to somewhere in your state. The product is probably still coming directly from a warehouse 500 miles away.

I know there's a legal difference (obviously), but it seems to me that they're using the same amount of state resources for both sales.
posted by demiurge at 8:44 AM on April 15, 2008


232 years after signing of the Declaration of Independence - in protest of England's taxation -
New York State still adds stipends wherever it can! Had the "Empire State" used the money
to build its own navy, citizens of the USA would have to shop in Montana for food and clothing!

-BELIEVE IT OR NOT!

posted by Smart Dalek at 8:55 AM on April 15, 2008


There's something lost when they add cushioned grips, don't ya think?

That is the saddest thing I've seen today. I want my pitchfork to look like it does in the D&D player's handbook. 1d8 damage, 10 lbs., 5 ft. reach, 10 ft. penalty to throw, etc.

Next you'll tell me that the 10 ft. Pole is really a 3.3 ft. telescoping aluminum piece of shit.

Something was lost when the objects around us in work became impractical in street fights. Not that I like street fights, but there's no denying that you'd take more seriously the grievances of someone brandishing a pitchfork.
posted by cowbellemoo at 9:14 AM on April 15, 2008


It's a padded grip, not padded tines. Now not only is it great in a fight it also won't leave unseemly calluses on your hands. What more could you want?
posted by aspo at 9:47 AM on April 15, 2008


...it seems to me that they're using the same amount of state resources for both sales.

What state resources is Amazon using?

I don't see this as an equitable thing to lay on the Internet stores, as long as catalog sales are not taxed just as effectively. Yes, the customer is supposed to pay those sales taxes, but the customer was supposed to pay sales on Internet purchases, too. Next, I suppose the states will want access to the NSA telephone records of all residents, so they can dun the catalog stores for uncollected taxes.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:53 AM on April 15, 2008


New York isn't providing any services to Amazon, so why should Amazon pay taxes to NY?

The logic of sales tax is that it is paid by the consumer to his or her home state, for the services rendered to the citizen. But since New York supplies such industrious and greedy consumers to Amazon, you'd think they could at least help the state collect its taxes.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:05 AM on April 15, 2008


That is the saddest thing I've seen today. I want my pitchfork to look like it does in the D&D player's handbook. 1d8 damage, 10 lbs., 5 ft. reach, 10 ft. penalty to throw, etc.

Holy crap, a pitchfork does 1d8?! That seems way high. Time to build my Farmer Army... I wonder if Amazon sells any +1 'forks for my campesino commandants.
posted by gurple at 10:22 AM on April 15, 2008


Taxing I can understand... but "try" internet purcahses?

Purcahses?

posted by hjo3 at 10:26 AM on April 15, 2008


The difference between amazon and a catalog is that amazon is allowing people who live in New York to sell their own inventory through amazon. Which is how the state is arguing that the dealers are the same as having a brick and mortar shop in the area.
posted by drezdn at 10:30 AM on April 15, 2008


If you're not already paying sales tax on your online purchases in NY by either the estimation or reciept method you're cheating on your taxes. These purchases are already taxed.
posted by Jahaza at 10:37 AM on April 15, 2008


Bathtub Bobsled : There's something lost when they add cushioned grips, don't ya think?

Here's the thing, when you've been to enough torch and pitchfork meetings, you realize that while the look of it is important, so is the ease of use. And let me tell you, when you are forking with one all day, having that padded handle can be a real boon, be it moving mulch or the chasing after the monster living in the windmill, sometimes you just have to keep with the times.
posted by quin at 10:39 AM on April 15, 2008


To clarify what I said above, Amazon is benefitting by allowing New York residents to sell their items through Amazon. For them, it's like having a plethora of tiny warehouses spread across the U.S.

If you want to be conspiratorial though, the number 2 largest online bookseller (bn.com) is headquartered in NY and has to collect sales taxes in most states.
posted by drezdn at 10:41 AM on April 15, 2008


Now some all-day forker is hijacking the thread, using a cushioned grip.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:49 AM on April 15, 2008


well, there is this thing called "use tax." at least in PA, the tax forms indicated that i should pay tax on any items that i bought online for which i had paid no tax on the original purchase (at least i think that was it). and you know the state is getting screwed out of almost all of that because people don't like to owe more money so they play dumb and pretend they never shop online.

so we're already supposed to be paying the tax, we just don't.

To respond to ROU_Xenophobe, the argument is that without the roads and infrastructure (that the state pays for), selling and shipping goods to people would be impossible. Hence, a tax to support that infrastructure.

yeah, that.
posted by misanthropicsarah at 10:51 AM on April 15, 2008


As a New York state resident, I'm pleased to let you know that we're already expected to pay tax on "Purchases outside New York State with subsequent use in New York State" (to quote the income tax form docs). For instance: I drive to Pennsylvania to buy a Snickers bar. I come back to Buffalo and consume said Snickers bar. I owe the state tax on that Snickers bar. And every other GD thing I buy on the internet/out of state.

I think the minimum amount "they" expect us to pay is $27.

There's a line item in the income tax forms that cannot be left blank.

And have you actually seen a pitchfork? 1d8 is pretty accurate :)
posted by jdfan at 11:00 AM on April 15, 2008


The logic of sales tax is that it is paid by the consumer to his or her home state, for the services rendered to the citizen.

That's a use tax, and is already in place. There's a line for it on your NY income tax form, with a dire warning DO NOT LEAVE THIS BLANK.

This isn't about taxing. This is about forcing Amazon to, without payment from New York, act as New York's tax agent and send the tax it collected back to New York. Why should New York be able to do that when New York provides no services to Amazon? New York has a perfectly good mechanism for this right now, it just has the problem that enforcement would be very unpopular.

To respond to ROU_Xenophobe, the argument is that without the roads and infrastructure (that the state pays for), selling and shipping goods to people would be impossible. Hence, a tax to support that infrastructure.

Interstate roads (roads that cross state lines, not I-40 etc) are almost entirely funded by the federal government and even the minor state portions of funding are usually through fuel taxes and other trucking taxes.

So Amazon is already indirectly paying for the roads by paying the shipping providers, who pay the relevant taxes.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:20 AM on April 15, 2008


Why should New York be able to do that when New York provides no services to Amazon?

Ah, but it does. As I said before, New York supplies rich and greedy consumers to Amazon. Since Amazon's whole business model is directed at avoiding paying taxes in states where it does large amounts of business, they clearly recognize the windfall to be achieved by gaining access to those consumers.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:41 AM on April 15, 2008


If enforcement of use tax would be very unpopular (and downright impossible), how can you purport that New York has a perfectly good mechanism in place?
posted by politikitty at 12:12 PM on April 15, 2008


In related news: Politicos Push For New iTunes Sales Taxes -- "Taxpayers may be smarting given it's April 15, but politicians in a growing number of states say taxes are necessary on digital downloads. Biggest fight is expected in California."
posted by ericb at 12:13 PM on April 15, 2008


I owe the state tax on that Snickers bar.

Not exactly. You owe the state the difference in tax. They can't tax you 8.375% on top of the other state's tax unless it's zero.

I'm just waiting for them to refund me the 4.625% difference on goods I buy in Ontario.
posted by oaf at 12:52 PM on April 15, 2008


NYS is sooooooooo broke.
California just grabs the contents of your Safe Deposit Box if you fail to visit it for mre than 2 years...
posted by Fupped Duck at 12:54 PM on April 15, 2008


It's a padded grip, not padded tines. Now not only is it great in a fight it also won't leave unseemly calluses on your hands. What more could you want?

Well, I do hate blisters from raking.... NO, wait! This is a stubby little piece of crap compared to the agrarian tridents of yore!

The rubberized grip will surely slip against any real forward thrust, let alone set against a charge. The sticky patina of congealed monster blood will be sufficient to hold fast the wooden shaft, thank you. Grips would also prevent me from giving the fork a menacing twist if I was so inclined. No. It will not do at all.
posted by cowbellemoo at 12:56 PM on April 15, 2008


...this is about forcing Amazon to, without payment from New York, act as New York's tax agent...

Don't forget the Vendor Collection Credit. If you pay on time you can claim 5% of the tax collected up to $200/quarter. That's a fat $800 a year!
posted by patrick rhett at 1:20 PM on April 15, 2008


so we're already supposed to be paying the tax, we just don't.

I do. Not to be Sweet Polly Purebred here, but I have no problem with ponying up the use tax in my state (based on the annual chart). It seems a perfectly fair trade-off for the convenience of not having to travel the 50+ miles it'd take to get to someplace that even might have the items I'm able to buy effortlessly online. Why would I want to deprive my state (and a seriously struggling one at that) of its cut when I'm saving all sorts of retail price and fuel dollars?
posted by FelliniBlank at 6:16 PM on April 15, 2008


New York isn't providing any services to Amazon, so why should Amazon pay taxes to NY? If anyone is going to collect sales taxes on purchases from Amazon, it should be the states where Amazon's physical facilities are located and that provide governmental services to Amazon.

I think the problem (from the state's perspective) is that a lot of brick-and-morter dealers are able to sell through Amazon as a proxy. I admit I don't know very much of Amazon's order fulfillment practices with regard to 3rd party dealers, but the few experiences I have had make me believe they merely pass the order along to the supplier, who does their own shipment and order fulfillment. In such a situation, Amazon is simply playing "Operator," and under any non-internet circumstances, this would result in a sales tax being levied.

If those states have chosen not to impose sales tax, that's none of New York's business.

Yeah, well, unfortunately for us poor tax-payers, it doesn't really matter whether it's their business or not, legally. The fact of the matter is, states routinely push their nose into things you wouldn't think were any of their business and get away with it all the time. Why? Re-ve-nue.

Take my state, for instance (Maine). I purchased an automobile a couple years back, and at the time I was looking for a rather particular make and model that was somewhat hard to come across. After a few months of looking, I finally found a seller in the neighboring state of New Hampshire.

Ah, New Hampshire! Home of the Hindsight-is-20-20 license plate. It turns out that New Hampshire also doesn't charge sales tax, which cut several hundred dollars from the final bill. How nice. But when I come back to Maine and try and register it, I'm told that I can't register my car until I pay them the taxes on it. The fuck do you care?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:11 AM on April 16, 2008


I think the problem (from the state's perspective) is that a lot of brick-and-morter dealers are able to sell through Amazon as a proxy.

I'd agree they shouldn't be able to do that and avoid sales tax.

But the sense I had from the article was that it was just referring to people who have links to Amazon products on their pages.

I'm told that I can't register my car until I pay them the taxes on it. The fuck do you care?

That's just a normal use tax. The proposed program is the equivalent of forcing car dealers in New Hampshire collect Maine sales tax and send it back to Maine.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:00 AM on April 16, 2008


Talking about this last night with my partner, we realized that Amazon is basically a database company: they're able to keep track of all their customer's preferences, reviews of trashy romance novels, and millions of products, but they can't remember 4,700 different tax codes, most of which are simple percentage adjustments?
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:16 AM on April 16, 2008


It seems a perfectly fair trade-off for the convenience of not having to travel the 50+ miles it'd take to get to someplace that even might have the items I'm able to buy effortlessly online. come up with every receipt for everything you bought last year outside the state.
posted by oaf at 6:16 AM on April 16, 2008


It seems a perfectly fair trade-off for the convenience of not having to travel the 50+ miles it'd take to get to someplace that even might have the items I'm able to buy effortlessly online. come up with every receipt for everything you bought last year outside the state.
posted by oaf at 6:17 AM on April 16, 2008


they can't remember 4,700 different tax codes, most of which are simple percentage adjustments?

They're not simple percentage adjustments, and I'm pretty sure that not every ZIP+4 is entirely in one jurisdiction.
posted by oaf at 6:20 AM on April 16, 2008


oaf: I was being a bit ridiculous in my example, but I think my point holds. The instructions for the state income tax return say that you can't leave the line blank. If you think you owe $0, you must fill that in. I think paranoia among tax payers results in them reporting something.

The pages (66-72) give some pretty clear guidelines:

- purchase property or a service that is delivered to you in New York State without payment of New York State and local tax to the seller, such as through the Internet, by catalog, from television shopping channels, or on an Indian reservation.

- purchase any of the following outside New York State: property you bring into New York State for use in New York State; a service performed on property outside New York State,
and you bring that property into New York State for use here; or a service (such as an information service) you bring into New York State for use here.

The latter, to my mind, covers the Snickers bar. It also covers all the folks who drive down to Erie, Pa, to buy clothes. Except, of course, that "most food items" are noted as exemptions a little further on :-)

Suffice it to say that NYS gets you coming and going. And frankly, I think this whole Amazon thing is ridiculous. Will there be a line item on next year's income tax form where I can deduct taxes paid on Amazon purchases from the sales and use tax line?
posted by jdfan at 6:28 AM on April 16, 2008


The latter, to my mind, covers the Snickers bar. It also covers all the folks who drive down to Erie, Pa, to buy clothes.

You only owe the difference in tax, though. Whatever tax you paid to the out-of-state jurisdiction is considered to be tax already paid on that item.

And there's no tax on clothes here.
posted by oaf at 6:58 AM on April 16, 2008


If they're under $110.
posted by oaf at 6:58 AM on April 16, 2008


they can't remember 4,700 different tax codes, most of which are simple percentage adjustments?

They're not simple percentage adjustments, and I'm pretty sure that not every ZIP+4 is entirely in one jurisdiction.


So painfully true. There are jurisdictions in CO, for example, that have streams and railroad tracks as their boundaries. Someday all this info will be geocoded and available in one handy location, but I don't think that's happened...
posted by patrick rhett at 9:54 AM on April 16, 2008


But, is New York state trying to just collect the state sales tax or the local ones too? If they're just collecting the state tax it'll be the same everywhere, and would just be setting in a database somewhere. After all, Amazon does collect sales tax in some states as mentioned above.
posted by drezdn at 10:11 AM on April 16, 2008


You only owe the difference in tax, though. Whatever tax you paid to the out-of-state jurisdiction is considered to be tax already paid on that item.

I didn't know that... the tax advice in the booklet seems to imply that I owe NYS the full tax no matter what :)
posted by jdfan at 11:21 AM on April 16, 2008


I didn't know that... the tax advice in the booklet seems to imply that I owe NYS the full tax no matter what :)

I think the reason they have to give you a credit is because they can't make you pay more tax than you'd pay if you bought it in New York just because you didn't buy it in New York—that's effectively an import tax, and a burden on interstate commerce.
posted by oaf at 5:08 PM on April 16, 2008


Amazon sues in State Supreme Court to overturn NY's law.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:28 PM on May 2, 2008


Someday all this info will be geocoded and available in one handy location, but I don't think that's happened...

It's not freely available, but there are certainly companies that provide it. For instance, Taxware.

It's not an easy thing to keep up-to-date, because there's no "central sales tax authority" that has to be notified every time a city changes its tax rates. Someone could maintain on something like a wiki, but that's not accurate enough for a business, who wants someone to guarantee the accuracy.
posted by smackfu at 2:14 PM on May 2, 2008


« Older Kanzius Machine: A Cancer Cure?   |   The Re Generation Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments