New York Politicians Think About Repealing Amazon Tax, But Let It Drop

from the so-much-for-that dept

Thu, Jul 31st 2008 6:42pm — Mike Masnick

Back in April, we noted that some NY state politicians were trying to put in place a rather sneaky legal change that effectively would force Amazon to collect sales tax in New York, despite not having a physical presence there. The "trick" was to claim that if you had any affiliates in the state, you had a local presence. Affiliates, of course, can be nothing more than an advertiser. So, based on this change of law, effectively anyone who has an advertiser in NY is considered to have a local presence there and must collect sales tax. Both Amazon.com and Overstock have sued over this law, and Overstock has even gone so far as to cut off all NY affiliates in response (showing how the law probably hurts NYers a lot more than it helps them).

Saul Hansell, over at the NY Times, picked up on an odd fact, however. Just weeks after this passed, a separate bill was introduced to repeal it. Yet, that bill appeared to have no sponsor, but the state Senate actually voted and approved it. After some digging, Hansell got an explanation: saying that the original bill was part of a larger bill that was approved, but many felt that they wanted to address just this specific issue. Of course, it appears that the state senators' interest is not matched by the corresponding state assembly (who would also need to pass such a bill). Over there, they'd just as soon leave the matter as is, and let the courts (and taxpayers) sort it out.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: affiliates, amazon tax, new york state, tax

8 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

eleete, 31 Jul 2008 @ 7:11pm

Anti-Bundling Bill
That's why we should have already passed the Anti-Bundling Bill so that one issue at a time should be voted on. A few in Congress are actually pushing for that, but with lobbyist interest's I doubt we'll see it anytime soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vernon in NY, 31 Jul 2008 @ 7:25pm
  
  Re: Anti-Bundling Bill
  Yeah! Too much backscratching going on! Any service that is not essential to human life shouldn't be paid for by the government.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bryan Henderson, 31 Jul 2008 @ 8:13pm
  
  Re: Anti-Bundling Bill
  This case shows that we don't need an anti-bundling bill, because a legislator can always just introduce another bill to undo a single component of a prior bundled bill.
  The bundling doesn't force legislators to vote in ways they don't want to -- it just reflects compromises they've made, which would be the same compromises if the bills were separate. A legislator wants low taxes for Amazon customers but even more wants a new highway. So he agrees to support taxing Amazon sales in exchange for his colleagues supporting the highway.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vernon, 31 Jul 2008 @ 7:21pm

If Amazon had a checkbox during the checkout that said "Why Am I charged Sales Tax" along with a checkbox to "Let NY Politicians know your dissappointed in this" for NY shipping addresses, I would click it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brad Eleven, 1 Aug 2008 @ 3:30am

This case shows that we don't need an anti-bundling bill, because a legislator can always just introduce another bill to undo a single component of a prior bundled bill.
There are many ways in which legislative bodies can stymie new legislation. Representative bodies have a Speaker who can simply refuse to recognize the bill's introduction, and any member of a Senatorial body can simply put a hold on any bill. Further, the introduction of a bill has nothing whatsoever to do with its passing, let along being signed into law by the executive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 1 Aug 2008 @ 9:08am

@Bryan Henderson Re: Anti-Bundling Bill
"This case shows that we don't need an anti-bundling bill, because a legislator can always just introduce another bill to undo a single component of a prior bundled bill."

Ummm, no. It's almost always much harder to repeal a law than it is to pass one in the first place.

In this case, somebody apparently went out of their way to sneak it through. I wouldn't want to depend on that to work every time.

"Laws are like sausages -- it's best not to see them made."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
buy new pc, 13 Dec 2008 @ 8:39am

buy new pc
Nice BLOG. useful for making money. A legislator wants low taxes for Amazon customers but even more wants a new highway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ViSalus, 30 Dec 2008 @ 5:45am

Visalus lifestyle
Interesting post! There are many ways in which legislative bodies can stymie new legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]