How is it unconstitutional?This would require Amazon to collect tax even if the seller/retailer has no physical presence in the state. It also mentions a use tax even if the retailer has no physical presence in the state. It may even be unconstitutional which is why Amazon is reacting the way they are.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CL...3882B4B872576A80026BE0C?Open&file=1193_01.pdf
How is it unconstitutional?
The “Amazon Tax” and “Streamlined Sales Tax Project” mentioned above reflect direct attempts to circumvent the Quill and Bellas Hess Supreme Court rulings and the U.S. Constitution. The Amazon Tax in particular is undergoing legal challenge in New York and was rejected in numerous other states in 2008 and 2009 due to likely constitutional hurdles.
Basically the gist of the billSo instead of mandating sales tax collection like they do in NY, what does this bill force Amazon to do? I'm not clear on this.
Section I of the bill relates to current law requiring a retailer to collect sales tax from a person residing in this state only if the retailer has sufficient connections with this state. Commencing March 1, 2010, section 1 articulates a presumption that any out-of-state retailer that has a referral relationship with an affiliate has an obligation to collect sales tax. The bill specifies that the presumption may be rebutted by the out-of-state retailer if the retailer can show that the affiliate with whom the retailer has such a relationship did not engage in active solicitation. The bill defines an affiliate as a person residing in this state that solicits business by means of a public forum in this state.
How is it unconstitutional?
Just another "unexpected" (but only to legislators) consequence of tax legislation. As long as there is a choice, folks will choose NOT to pay taxes.
.bh.
Colorado is one of those states that a couple of years ago reported it spent $800 Million on treating and providing healthcare for illegal aliens.Well, if people in Colorado who purchased from Amazon hadn't cheated on their taxes than Colorado wouldn't have had to do this, and Amazon wouldn't have had to do that.
Who's to blame?
The tax cheats in Colorado and New York.
Blame them, not Colorado or New York.
In fact, here's an idea.
If out of state suppliers aren't responsible for collecting sales tax, than in state suppliers shouldn't either.
CNET has picked up on this news. I am working on contacting other news outlets in Colorado to run the news in hopes of putting enough pressure on the state legislature that they will repeal it. Apparently the state legislature is meeting today to see about an emergency repeal of the law but I'm told its not looking promising. After I finish contacting every source in the media where I have contacts, I am going to try to get in contact with the people in the legislature trying to get it repealed and see if I can help get enough of a push going that will get it repealed.
FYI: Virginia passed a similar bill.
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/02/virginia-senate-panel-oks-move-tax-online-shopping
Who's to blame?
The tax cheats in Colorado and New York.
Blame them, not Colorado or New York.
In fact, here's an idea.
If out of state suppliers aren't responsible for collecting sales tax, than in state suppliers shouldn't either.
So Colorodo decides to play chicken with Amazon and loses. Now it doesn't get the tax revenue PLUS it loses tax revenue from Amazon affiliates. Way to show them Amazon.
Amazon loses as a Competitor will just come in who will abide by the Law and not use Its' Customers as Pawns.
Rhode Island passed a similar "affilate nexus" bill. RI of course thought by doing so their tax revenues from the bill would rise.
Amazon did the same thing, they pulled their affiliate program, RI is LOSING tax revenue because of it. It's a terrible law and likely unconstitutional which is why Amazon is fighting it. There's a reason why it's called "the amazon tax" because it's trying to get tax from Amazon and failing miserably in that effort.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...avclient-ff&rlz=1B2DVFC_enUS221US221&ie=UTF-8
I'm failing to see how Rhode Island is losing tax revenue because they are already losing the tax revenue where people don't pay. The people who are being responsible, well, nothing would change for them.Rhode Island passed a similar "affilate nexus" bill. RI of course thought by doing so their tax revenues from the bill would rise.
Amazon did the same thing, they pulled their affiliate program, RI is LOSING tax revenue because of it. It's a terrible law and likely unconstitutional which is why Amazon is fighting it. There's a reason why it's called "the amazon tax" because it's trying to get tax from Amazon and failing miserably in that effort.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...avclient-ff&rlz=1B2DVFC_enUS221US221&ie=UTF-8
I'm failing to see how Rhode Island is losing tax revenue because they are already losing the tax revenue where people don't pay. The people who are being responsible, well, nothing would change for them.
I'm failing to see how Rhode Island is losing tax revenue because they are already losing the tax revenue where people don't pay. The people who are being responsible, well, nothing would change for them.
Could find the exact figures. Mind posting a direct link?That's why I put the google link so you could read exactly how, why and how much.
Could find the exact figures. Mind posting a direct link?