9 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
9 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

llinois Supreme Court strikes down 'Amazon tax' as unconstitutional

by Joe Mobley
7 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Of course, the bill backfired horribly. Rather than deal with a state sales tax hassle, Amazon simply cut ties with most of its Illinois affiliates, a move that may have impacted as many as 9,000 businesses statewide.
I wonder how this will impact other Amazon Tax laws in other states?

llinois Supreme Court strikes down 'Amazon tax' as unconstitutional | National Monitor

Joe Mobley
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    Go Illinois Supremes! Maybe someone has some common sense after all.

    Is that the final word - or can the people trying to keep this tax now go to federal courts?
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    Live life like someone left the gate open
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8622287].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

      Go Illinois Supremes! Maybe someone has some common sense after all.

      Is that the final word - or can the people trying to keep this tax now go to federal courts?
      As I recall, ILLINOIS plaintiffs have only TWO remedies:

      1. Comply with the order.
      2. Go to the U.S. supreme court, and hope THEY overturn the verdict. If the US supreme court AGREES with the verdict, ALL states will have to comply.

      BTW since it is a state supreme court, future cases elsewhere may look to this case as a potential precedent. It COULD cause some cases to be overturned elsewhere!

      I said ALL ALONG it was illegal to tax like this. It violates an OLD law that says that mail order firms should NOT be taxed unless they have a viable presence in the area. Like it or not, "ONLINE" IS mailorder! It follows the SAME deals, and is subject to the SAME limitations, and is NOT a viable presence! The computer is like an envelope, and the order form is like an order form. and B&M companies can ship faster, and for less, and you have better communication that can be face to face in almost notime. EACH has benefits the other doesn't.

      I guess you COULD say it is unconstitutional, because the states have NO right to control interstate commerce, and the federal government is to provide parity! So the federal government couldn't levy an uneven tax, and the states can't levy ANY! As for the federal government it could be argued on several grounds that they can't even tax interstate commerce.

      The states were trying to SKIRT all this by claiming that an INDEPENDENT salesperson(online advertising ASSOCIATE, in this case) represented a viable presence. THAT was why the affected companies closed down such associate agreements.

      I'm not a lawyer, I just looked at this and have seen similar things before.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8622357].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        That's what I wondered, Steve - if they could fight this on up to the US Supreme Court or whether in a case affecting state taxes the State Supreme had the final word.

        States were reacting to complaints of brick/mortar businesses and it's never been a smart move in any state that's tried this new tax method.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
        ***
        Live life like someone left the gate open
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8622443].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          That's what I wondered, Steve - if they could fight this on up to the US Supreme Court or whether in a case affecting state taxes the State Supreme had the final word.

          States were reacting to complaints of brick/mortar businesses and it's never been a smart move in any state that's tried this new tax method.
          This IS a case of FEDERAL/STATE jurisdiction, involves the state level, and COULD be a constitutional case. A case covering any one of those areas, suggested by one with standing, is about the only one the supreme court can really hear, and only after the state supreme court has judged.

          In a case like this, if illinois were the only state doing this to amazon, couldn't be brought by amazon, because they would no longer have standing. Illinois could bring it, but it would be BAD for them if they lost! If I were amazon, I would probably try the state supreme courts first, even though other states HAVE done this to them, so they still have standing for the US supreme court. Maybe after the second case, I would then go to the US supreme court. If they won, it is more convincing to the US supreme court. If they lost, it would be best to appeal on THEIR terms.

          BTW the US supreme court TRUMPS all state supreme courts! Look at Miranda v. Arizona - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for example. The ARIZONA supreme court said miranda was guilty, as he CONFESSED! The US supreme court said he didn't know he could keep quiet, and so should have been found NOT guilty! The result? The ENTIRE COUNTRY had to start WARNING people about certain rights. Watch any cop/court show, and you will see they enumerate the warnings and may even call them the "miranda warnings". Named after THIS CASE!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8622780].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    We already had this come and go in California. Governor decided we need the sales tax (stupid ass we need the jobs/income more) - Amazon kicked all the affiliates in California out - we attacked the governor for it - he rescinded the law - Amazon invited us back.

    ... and I have seen other states where this dance has been done although I don't know how they ended up...

    It's a stupid law - good riddance. Nobody will pay sales tax if they have no income to buy anything with because there are no jobs. duh. If they had any sense they would realize people who are trying to earn an income from home just might not be able to find any other way to support themselves - they should be supported so they don't start knocking over people for money out of desperation.
    Signature

    Patricia Brucoli
    Plug-In Profit Site Helpdesk

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8622792].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      We already had this come and go in California. Governor decided we need the sales tax (stupid ass we need the jobs/income more) - Amazon kicked all the affiliates in California out - we attacked the governor for it - he rescinded the law - Amazon invited us back.

      ... and I have seen other states where this dance has been done although I don't know how they ended up...

      It's a stupid law - good riddance. Nobody will pay sales tax if they have no income to buy anything with because there are no jobs. duh.
      The SAME sort of thing happened in Indiana, though Amazon actually DOES have a presence in indiana....

      Affiliate Tax in Indiana Update (Including New House Bill)

      This *****IS***** patently illegal though!!!!!!!!!!! WHY? Because as consideration for building a presence in indiana, and thus CREATING JOBS and BRINGING INCOME INTO THE STATE, amazon was SPECIFICALLY told they would NOT have to collect sales tax!

      You can call it FRAUD! You can call it BREACH OF CONTRACT! Call it EXTORTION!(They could supposedly abandon ALL they built to collect no taxes) But I certainly wouldn't call it LEGAL!

      Anyway, the above page links to Internet Tax Looming in Indiana? and the two provide a pretty good view of where the US is going here. Oh yeah! Apparently she IS an attorney! Her education includes a B.A. from Ball State University and a J.D.(Doctorate level degree in law) from Indiana University, Bloomington. she passed the bar in Indiana in 1999.(Lawyer licensed in Indiana) As an I.M. person working a lot with Affiliate income, it looks like she is concentrating on that.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8622825].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author garyv
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      We already had this come and go in California. Governor decided we need the sales tax (stupid ass we need the jobs/income more) - Amazon kicked all the affiliates in California out - we attacked the governor for it - he rescinded the law - Amazon invited us back.

      ... and I have seen other states where this dance has been done although I don't know how they ended up...

      It's a stupid law - good riddance. Nobody will pay sales tax if they have no income to buy anything with because there are no jobs. duh. If they had any sense they would realize people who are trying to earn an income from home just might not be able to find any other way to support themselves - they should be supported so they don't start knocking over people for money out of desperation.
      Yes I never understood how they got away with passing that law here in Illinois. FatWallet.com was right down the road from me, and they employed quite a few people. But they moved across the border into Wisconsin when Illinois passed this law. They are now saying that they aren't coming back no matter what the law is.

      Personally I'm glad they've overturned the law, now I don't have to rent out a mail-box in Nevada any more.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8623082].message }}

Trending Topics