California recently instituted as part of its budget solution an “Amazon Tax” aimed at forcing out-of-state, online retailers with no physical presence in the Golden State to collect and remit sales tax in respect of goods sold to Californians where the retailer in question advertises, or maintains an “affiliate” referral relationship, with websites based within state lines.

Prior to passage of the bill obligating collection and remittance in such circumstances, prominent online retailers including Amazon.com and Overstock.com had threatened to terminate relationships with affiliates, if the legislation became law.  Now that it has, and affiliate relationships are being severed, something critics of the legislation say was entirely foreseeable is occurring: Online businesses and entrepreneurs are leaving the state, thus risking an actual reduction, as opposed to marginal increase, in California’s tax revenue.

Last month, news broke of one California-based online entrepreneur who had decided to ditch California and move to Nevada in the aftermath of Gov. Jerry Brown signing the law.  ”I always figured that in California, home to Silicon Valley and a million tech startups, they’d never pass a law like this,” said Nick Loper, who formerly operated ShoesRUs and has now opened a new venture, ShoeSniper.

Per the piece in which Loper is quoted, more than 70 affiliates had at that stage already left California, according to online businesses.

Then, last Thursday, another online entrepreneur, Erica Douglass, posted a mock “It’s Over” letter to California on her blog. Douglass, who sold an internet company she had built for $1.1 million in 2007 when she was just 26, cited multiple reasons for moving to Austin.  Among them were unnecessary paperwork requirements mandated by the state, and high taxes as well as business fees.  However, the straw that broke the camel’s back, was according to Portfolio, Brown signing the Amazon Tax into law.

(more…)

Capitol Confidential has previously reported on legislation introduced by California Democratic Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner that seeks to impose a new, and unconstitutional, tax on out-of-state, online retailers including (ironically) a number of eBay users.  Capitol Confidential has since learned that a prominent corporate sponsor of such efforts is retail giant Target, and that a number of other big retailers back the legislation, too.  According to one source, that group includes Bloomingdale’s.

So what if neither Target nor Bloomingdale’s collected and remitted sales/use taxes in states where they sell online to customers but in which they maintain no physical presence (the practice Skinner’s bill aims to ban by redefining the concept of “nexus”)?  Based on what appears on both companies’ websites when one inputs an order using the data of a resident of such states, it appears both corporations are willingly taking advantage of the same constitutional case law as the online retailers targeted by Skinner’s legislation to avoid tax liability.

Here is a screenshot of the “review” page related to a Target transaction input using a Vermont customer’s information. Target’s website indicates that there are no Target stores in Vermont, and this is the final page at which customers can make adjustments, or discard the transaction:

No sales or use tax appears as a line item in the transaction, and the asterisk next to the $0.00 figure merely points to a line saying “why has sales tax been applied?” (which in this case, it has not).

(more…)

Last week, California Democratic Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner announced the introduction of fresh legislation to force out-of-state, online retailers to collect California sales tax– legislation that critics charge amounts to an effort to introduce a new tax in what is arguably already the most heavily-taxed state in the nation.

The move replicates others pursued in years past by Democratic colleagues of Skinner– but notably avoided by Gov. Jerry Brown in his recently announced budget– and by all accounts seems to ignore the overwhelming likelihood that such a scheme would prove unconstitutional if challenged in court (by virtue of the the Quill v. North Dakota decision).

However, Skinner’s legislation is also being challenged on the basis that it would not, contrary to backers’ assertions, help put a substantial dent in the state budget deficit or eliminate or minimize the need for deep budget cuts in order to close it.  In fact, using Skinner’s own numbers, it appears that the institution of a so-called “Amazon tax” would strip away a mere 1.1 percent of California’s budget deficit:

(image via Americans for Tax Reform)

Critics say even the minuscule prospective “help” that might be afforded by the institution of Skinner’s new tax with regard to closing the Golden State’s budget gap may represent a “best-case” scenario: Were the new tax instituted, online retailers could well end their affiliate programs, thereby denying affiliates a revenue stream that enabled them to contribute over $100 million to California’s coffers in 2009.

(more…)