Busted: ‘Amazon Tax’ Backer’s Hypocrisy on Sales Tax Collection
by Capitol ConfidentialWal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s largest retailer, has some dirty laundry to air. According to the LA Times, the top backer of so-called “Amazon Tax” laws itself fails to collect sales tax on items sold through its site and paid for via credit card transactions processed by the company– a practice that looks suspiciously similar to that of top online retailers with regard to sales made to consumers in states in which the retailers maintain no physical presence.
Indeed, CSN Stores, a Boston-based company that markets through Wal-Mart, and arguably Wal-Mart itself as an entity through which CSN sells, appear to be availing themselves of the exact same constitutional law protection as Amazon and Overstock. Sales tax on CSN products is only added to a Wal-Mart transaction where shipments of products bought through Wal-Mart are headed to Utah or Massachusetts, states where CSN maintains a physical presence. No sales tax is added to purchases made by Californians, even though Wal-Mart’s website is reportedly operated out of the Golden State.
This is despite the fact that under California’s new “Amazon Tax” law– for which Wal-Mart heavily lobbied– the retail giant would appear to be under an obligation to collect sales taxes in respect of CSN goods sold to Californians.
California Board of Equalization member Betty Yee, a proponent of the “Amazon Tax” law, considers Wal-Mart subject to the same obligations as Amazon, with an additional responsibility to act given Wal-Mart’s role in aggressively pushing the legislation.
“As a leader in trying to enforce the new [law], they also should be leading the charge in terms of being very clear about the application of the tax on all transactions with California consumers,” Yee said to the LA Times. Yee is reportedly seeking an investigation into whether Wal-Mart is currently violating the same law it has employed a virtual army of top-flight lobbyists and political consultants in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., to advance.
The Quill Corp v North Dakota Supreme Court decision that establishes that Amazon, Overstock and others are not obliged to collect and remit sales taxes where they sell to customers in a state in which the relevant retailer maintains no physical presence likely presents good legal grounds for Wal-Mart’s practices.
However, critics say that will do little to undercut charges of hypocrisy or diminish claims that Wal-Mart’s pursuit of “Amazon Taxes” has nothing to do with enforcing legal obligations and rather is about using the arm of government to gain what Wal-Mart hopes will be a competitive advantage, guaranteed by legislation.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
37 Comments
Who would have ever thought that Wal-mart would be hypocritical?
On the other hand, who would have ever thought, that the kindly old grandfatherly image portrayed by Warren Buffett, would hide the hypocrite within http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/0... ?
I would.
But then, I am a jaded cynic.
"California Board of Equalization "
What? Really?
Shoot me.
Companies are there to make money, so hypocrisy is OK from that angle, yet I hope CA gives them a new one and collects lots and lots of money from them, and cost Walmart more. The hoist thingie…
Walmart.com is located in Brisbane, CA and has over 1,000 employees there. So I'd say that is a presence.
That being said, something is going to have to give over this internet sales tax issue. Amazon is a master at maintaining a tax free scenario for their customers. Clearly, this negatively affects their competitors. I'd love to not have any sales taxes at all, but I am also a supporter of equal justice under the law.
BANG!
There.
Feel better?
"California Board of Equalization "
Life imitating art… Rand was right.
Why don't we just fix the tax code? Think about how much of our energy and production goes into meeting the labyrinthine tax requirements.
I don't think I'll feel better til next November.
I became a skeptic of Walmart the day Michelle Obama started having meetings with their executive members.
Walmart being non-Union……..something doesn't smell right.
But that would effectively take away the single biggest tool the Democrats/Communists have Red, class warfare.
Yes, that is the answer, but it will not change until we have a super majority, all RINO's out of Washington and an uber Conservative POTUS. I'd give the odds on that happening in the next 10 years at 100,000 to 1.
I wouldn't bet against that with a doughnut.
Hypocrisy!!!?
Nah, that does not exist…..at least while The One is President!!!!/sarc off
Pray you don't have a hangover . . . of the last 4 years.
The left has become a protection racket and are making examples of those who don't pay, e.g. ATT and Gibson. Paying protection money is pretty standard in Banana Republics. That's what President Petulant has reduced us to.
/cue in Harry Belafonte singing our new national anthem.
Come Mr. Tallyman, tally me banana, daylight come, and me wanna go home…………
I was mailed a letter by Kalifornia State Board of Equalization. They accused me of being in a business and that I must owe them tax revenue…. I kid you not. I believe they thought I must have been starting a business because the only thing I bought online were some Heirloom seeds and I bought two packs. I bought one for myself and one for a buddy. So, they deduced I must have started up a business and I must owe them money.
Desperate times here in Kalifornia….
Don't forget that Hillary Clinton used to be a board member of Wal-Mart!
As for Buffett, no one has listed all of his tax hypocrisy in one place, however, one lie that he told Obama can't stop repeating: that he has a higher tax rate than his secretary. There are at least 3 tax lies in that one alone.
I was thinking the same thing.
What next. The California Board of Happy?
Wouldn't it be a DARN SHAME(TM) if Wal-Mart were smacked around by California tax authorities for sales taxes because of their pro-Marxist lobbying efforts? Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people
Poetic justice.
Don't worry, be happy……….
"Equalization" should really be "Re-Distribution."
Sounds like it was lifted directly from an Orwell story, doesn't it?
Eliminate sales tax and instant equality under the law.
DAY-O! DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY-O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
no,that would once again be Democrats proving how anti-capitalist they are.
"Clearly, this negatively affects their competitors".
Good. Any company that sells online to customers out of state can still enjoy a competetative business advantage. I have no problem with that – it's good for consumers and it's less burden on the company. Brick and mortars with limited locations can do the same thing.
I don't think it should EVER be the responsibility for a business physically operating out of state to collect a sales tax for the state the customer resides in.
which tax code? see every level of government seems to think they have a right to fleece taxpayers. here in illinois there is no single sales tax, we have different governmental bodies that can add to the sales tax in thier area. so we have the state, county, village, mass transit, and others. and for amazon to actually know which tax applies to each location would take massive programming. if we could just stop letting everybody levy taxes, and stop the out of control spending, we might stop the insanity. i was talking to someone yesterday, who informed me, businesses in my town pay a decoration tax, for the beautification committee, wow, that is insane.
"I don't think it should EVER be the responsibility for a business physically operating out of state to collect a sales tax for the state the customer resides in."
I have no problem with this statement. However, all the governments (both state & fed) are now in the position of picking winners and losers– not based on their ability to compete on a level playing field, but rather on tax strategy. It puts the emphasis in the wrong place for the free market to work best.
Honestly, I am surprised that Walmart has not created a completely separate company just to handle web transactions. They could even set up the operation in the Cayman Islands and sell product tax free in all 50 states. My guess is that they have looked at this approach and were told by the government that they would be sued or that it would be illegal.
They are being penalized by the government because they happen to have stores in all 50 states. The government should not be in this business. The Internet is basically changing the paradigm of sales tax policy and it needs to be reviewed and that is my only real point here.
I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of study on the effects of tax strategies and the flow of business. Almost all states do it, and some localities do it within states – by providing tax exemptions, breaks etc… in order to attract businesses to the state. I know that's a different issue than sales tax, but it does speak to the same issue about government picking winners and losers – as not all companies equally share in the tax benefit. There are a lot of arguements for and against this – one thing I like is the concept of states competing against one another, as it sort of follows the "50 experiments" concept.
We are talking federal level. The citizens of each state and district are going to have to figure out what works at home.
I think we are very much in agreement here. The problem is that the Internet has turned the concept of interstate commerce on its head. Up to this point the Feds have largely been hands off…thank God…but something will have to give eventually. What if the fed did a 5% national sales tax on all goods sold over the Internet with all proceeds going directly to debt reduction? States would not be happy, and I'd never trust the gov't to keep it's word, but the idea could solve a couple of problems.Sent from my iPhone
but this is my point. the purpose of these amazon taxes are for states. but among the state issues, are these differences in sales taxes in a given state. there is no federal sales tax, and please do not suggest one. while a sales tax would be fairer than a income tax, before a national sales tax is implemented, we need to eliminate income taxes. perhaps the states could make this issue easier on the businesses, and only make them charge the state portion of sales taxes, but they never even mention this simple fix to make life easier for these businesses.
Oh, sh*t, that's what California really needs, another tax…..
Leftist Commie pr*cks won't be happy till we're all working for free and standing in soup lines.
I'm all for a national sales tax but only as a full replacement of the income tax (coupled with a repeal of the 16th amendment). I'm not, however, in favor of any additional taxes on anything. I don't want the federal government to have a dime more from any additional source until the reckless spending problem is resolved (which has no hope of changing with the present condition of the WH and Senate).
After what has happened with social security, I would never trust the Feds to put any of the money towards the debt (a debt which would only increase anyway) regardless of what the "law" might tell them to do. Of course, social security would have failed eventually anyway due to other reasons, but it would have taken a lot longer.
a.k.a. "California Board of Failure"
NO to the nat'l sales tax unless it was the ONLY tax and increases were tied to GDP or some economic number.
Okay. I wasn't paying attention to the state point. Your fix sounds simple. I know so very little about actual "tax theory", but I get that CA is responsible for its own tax code. If they wish to pass this, and suffer the fallout, as in most every other effort to tax every single thing that exists, then CA will. CA would serve its citizens well by passing a balanced budget amendment. I forget the actual numbers, but the govt outspends revenue by a breathtaking measure. That is one of the reasons we didn't stay there.
Companies are there to make money, so hypocrisy is OK from that angle, yet I hope CA gives them a new one and collects lots and lots of money from them, and cost Walmart more. beth jones
You must be logged in to post a comment.