#rsrh Amazon tax in Illinois ends predictably.

Amazon.com canceled its affiliate program in Illinois.  Overstock.com will be doing so on May 1st.  Zappos and Shoes.com are in the process of doing the same.  Companies that rely on this affiliate program are planning to relocate out of Illinois and somewhere (Wisconsin says hi!) that doesn’t have an Amazon tax.  All of this is hardly news: Illinois legislators had this explained to them from the start.  They just ignored it, not least because they’re actively courting some of the big-box brick-and-mortar retailers (who are currently having their milkshakes drunk by online retailers).

And note well: none of this will affect the average consumer’s ability to buy stuff from Amazon.com, or any of the other large Internet-based retailers.  It merely shuts off state revenue in the form of income tax that Illinois was earlier and effortlessly gathering from in-state retailers.  Revenue that will not be made up for by taxing any mild sales increases for, say, Wal-Mart.

Moe Lane Continue reading #rsrh Amazon tax in Illinois ends predictably.

Amazon ended affiliate program in Illinois.

Right on schedule.

It got overshadowed by recent events both foreign and domestic, but last week Governor Pat Quinn (D, IL) signed legislation declaring that in-state affiliates for online sellers count as ‘a physical presence’ in Illinois, thus theoretically allowing the state to require those online sellers to collect sales tax information.  This is usually called the ‘Amazon tax*,’ as it is largely aimed at Amazon.com**. This is a long-standing dispute (H/T: Instapundit), and usually ends with the companies in question ending their affiliate programs: Illinois businesses and individuals were however assured (by groups like the Illinois Retail Merchants Association) that there was no chance that Amazon.com would dare end its affiliate program for Illinois***.

Turns out that this was incorrect: as usual in these cases, Amazon.com (and Overstock.com) immediately closed down its affiliate program for Illinois (beginning April 15), thus making the issue moot.  This means that no Illinois resident or company will receive a commission for sales – which means lost revenue, which means less taxable revenue for the state of Illinois (Amazon.com requires its affiliates to fill out 1099 forms, and the money that affiliates generate is subject to income tax).  It does not mean that Amazon.com itself is forbidden to Illinois: Illinois residents may continue to purchase products from the company – and given its current market share, the lack of affiliate linkage will probably not have any effect on the company’s sales at all.  In other words, the state of Illinois has just reduced its annual tax revenue and absolved Amazon.com of the necessity of paying out 4% to 15% commissions on any product indirectly sold on its behalf by a citizen of Illinois.

Brilliant move there, Governor Quinn.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Continue reading Amazon ended affiliate program in Illinois.

Colorado ‘Amazon tax’ unconstitutional?

[UPDATE: ‘Amazon tax laws,’ for those who are wondering, represent attempts to get around a Supreme Court ruling regarding out-of-state transactions.  Residents of states who have a sales tax are theoretically expected to pay sales tax on all transactions, not just ones that take place in-state: however, vendors with out-of-state customers have long taken the position that trying to keep track of every jurisdiction’s sales tax rules is an undue burden upon them.  The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that vendors are only required to track and collect sales tax on transactions for states where they had a physical presence.  This effectively means that online retailers such as Amazon.com are effectively released from the burden of collecting sales tax information.  Various Democratic state legislators – blanching at the very idea of trying to enforce individual residents from reporting their online transactions for taxation purposes – have attempted to make an end run around this ruling by writing legislation declaring in-state affiliates of online retailers as counting in terms of ‘physical location:’ Amazon’s typical response is to immediately cancel all affiliate programs in the targeted state, thus eliminating any need for them to collect sales tax information.]

That’s the preliminary ruling by a US District Court judge, at least: he’s ruled that the law is unconstitutional on Commerce Clause grounds, and has issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the state of Colorado to enforce the disclosure rules on out-of-state vendors before the deadline.  I am not a lawyer, but the short version is that the judge ruled that the Amazon tax law violated the Commerce Clause by putting regulatory and disclosure burdens on out-of-state vendors that were not present on in-state ones; that the plaintiffs (including the Direct Marketing Association) had a valid chance to prevail in the broader case; and that until the issue was involved it would be inappropriate for the State of Colorado to collect information as per the Amazon tax law.

This is only a preliminary injunction, obviously: if this court or a higher one decides that the law is Constitutional after all it’ll be reversed.  That’s why Colorado House Majority Leader Amy Stephens (Republican, of course) is introducing legislation repealing the original law.  Colorado Senate Majority Leader John Morse (Democrat) is reflexively opposing the repeal, even though he’s sufficiently ignorant of the ruling as to apparently think that either the DMA or its members have revenue caps of $600/year.  New Governor Hickenlooper is thus in a bit of a jam; he’s facing a House that decidedly flipped last election cycle and a looming court controversy, and a remarkably uneducated set of Senate allies on the other.  That this can be fairly categorized as a ‘bit of a jam’ tells you a lot about the current ideological condition of the various state Democratic parties. Continue reading Colorado ‘Amazon tax’ unconstitutional?

#rsrh Maryland considering Amazon tax again?

Yes.  Of course.  Because Amazon won’t pull their affiliate program out of Maryland – thus making the entire exercise moot – the moment that it passes.  Just like they didn’t do it in North Carolina or Rhode Island, and just like they aren’t still thinking about doing it in New York, depending on how the court cases go.

And before I hear about how this won’t have any effect on individual affiliates, so Amazon.com is being absurd:

The bill would require a Web retailer like Amazon.com to charge sales tax on orders to Maryland customers if the retailer gets more than $10,000 in sales a year from affiliate marketers — sites run by businesses or individuals in the state that have contracts to send sales traffic to large retailers.

Ten grand in sales, not profit.  That’s small.  How small? Let me put it this way:  MoeLane.com’s referrals last year would have required Amazon to collect sales tax.  Not that I saw ten grand in revenue, or even a tenth of that (and the amount that I did see was duly taxed by the State of Maryland, even though as far as I can tell the State of Maryland didn’t do anything specific to earn its cut).  And if these Senatorial idiots Richard S. Madaleno and Ulysses Currie (both Democrats, of course) have their way, I – and the State of Maryland – won’t see a tenth of that tenth, because my Amazon Associates account will be terminated before the ink’s dry on the signature of their shiny new law. 

And then nobody gets any money.

My only comfort is that I didn’t actually vote for any of these people.  Being a Republican, and everything.

Moe Lane

PS: Full disclosure, in case it isn’t obvious: I am an affiliate of Amazon.com (ahem). At least, for right now.

Colorado Democrats put more Amazon money in my pocket. #rsrh

(Via Instapundit) Not that I wanted them to, but if they’re going to insist on shutting down Colorado’s Amazon Affiliates program* I can at least look on the bright side.  Fortunately, there are enough Marylander legislators with working brain cells to continue to make it possible for me to put up this link:

Amazon.com

…and still hope to generate revenue from it.  I’m truly sorry that people from North Carolina, Rhode Island, and now Colorado can’t, but it’s not my fault that all three states have Democratic-controlled legislatures.

Oh, yeah, full disclosure: I generate revenue from Amazon Associate links.  As if you hadn’t guessed already.

Moe Lane

*More details here, including some pushback on the standard Lefty objections to Amazon.com ending its CO affiliates program.  See also here for a site dedicated to reversing this.