Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
New York court dismisses Amazon's objections to paying state taxes (techcrunch.com)
16 points by vaksel on Jan 13, 2009 | hide | past | favorite | 16 comments



This is terrible news. If I was Amazon I'd eliminate all NY affiliates and tell them to contact their state. Lack of regulation and taxes is what makes the internet so awesome (and sometimes, awful).


That's what Overstock.com did.

http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/6289

To get around the “Amazon Tax,” Overstock.com terminated its relationship with any New York affliates; it also filed suit against the state of New York (as did Amazon.com, separately). Meanwhile, Newegg.com simply stopped collecting it.


"Meanwhile, Newegg.com simply stopped collecting it."

That's not a bad idea, either- what's the State of New York going to do- as long as your company doesn't hold any assets in the State?


Is there a follow up to this story? It seems like there would be some response.


So are affiliates different from advertising? If I print an ad in a newspaper and include a coupon is that a presence in the state? I hope new York isn't home to any publishing or advertising companies - this could be really bad news for them.


If an affiliate claims residency (as a individual or business) in NY and AMZN gives them money, then there's NY taxes involved.


yeah but they are the responsibility of the affiliate


hence the controversy


[deleted]


at a certain point you're a multi-billion dollar company who can deal with [taxes]

1. No matter how many billions in revenue a company commands, it might inhabit a low-margin industry.

2. The taxes are shifted to the consumers. Do you mean to imply that each of the consumers is also a multi-billion dollar company?


[deleted]


However, in this case other businesses with a presence in a state (say, Target) must pay the tax [...] while Amazon [...] doesn't.

An important difference is that a virtual store does not cost the local community money when it operates there. When Target physically locates in NYC, it uses physical NYC resources such as:

  1. Fire protection service.
  2. Police protection service.
  3. Planning commission service.
  4. Streets.
  5. Mass transit.
  6. Traffic enforcement.
  7. Sewer.
  8. Water.
The NYPD annual budget is $3.9 billion, with 37,838 officers, 76 precincts, 12 transit districts, 9 Housing-Police service areas, 3000+ police cars, 27 police boats, 7 helicopters, 120 horses, 31 German Shepherds, and 3 Bloodhounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Police_Department How much of that need is likely attributable to the fact that Amazon.com does business in NYC?

It's a similar story for the Staties. How many extra New York State Police (NYSP) troopers are required to be on duty, because of the virtual presence of Amazon.com in New York State? Here's the count: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Police $0.668 billion budget, 5,572 employees (4,667 troopers and 905 civilians), and 12 troop facilities.

If Amazon.com did less or zero business in New York State, could the number of NYSP troopers be reduced?

If Amazon.com did less or zero business in New York State, could the annual state budget be reduced? (General Fund: $2.2 billion; All Funds: $4.1 billion in 2009-10) http://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+state+budget+2009+bi...


While I agree in general, to say that Amazon has zero impact on the state is also not true, as the packages don't magically teleport to customers.

Along the way, UPS enjoys fire and police protection, places wear on the streets, requires traffic enforcement, city planning, water, etc.

Note that in theory, NYS residents voluntarily self-report and self-pay state and local use tax for purchases made out of state on which no tax was collected. I'm sure that amounts to hundreds of dollars per year for the state...


The case in question concerns New York state, where Amazon does not (to my knowledge, based on facts in the links above) have a warehouse.

Your case for wholly-owned warehouses is a reasonable one, and in fact, Amazon collects and pays sales taxes in several of those states.

The New York case is materially different in that it concerns marketing affiliates, not warehouse holding companies.


The case in question concerns New York state

To be clear, I believe the sales taxes in question are both state and local:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123186764434777801.html?mod=...

The judge said New York's law doesn't broadly tax "any and all Internet sales," but instead requires companies to collect state and local sales taxes if the company generates $10,000 or more in revenue as a result of commissions paid to persons in New York for sales referrals.


So, is that per affiliate (i.e. if no New York affiliate generated over $10,000, then Amazon owes no taxes) or aggregated (i.e. affiliates in New York generated $500,000 total payments, and Amazon now owes tax on said $500,000)? My guess would be for the latter.


> Amazon now owes tax on said $500,000

No. The rule is that if Amazon does enough biz with NY affiliates, it has to pay sales tax on all sales to NY residents. (Of course, it can collect said sales tax from NY residents.)


My guess, based on the wording in the WSJ sentence I quoted, would also be for the latter (aggregated).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: