Amazon Takes Sales Tax War to California | Hacker News Reader

Amazon Takes Sales Tax War to California

nytimes.com

29 pointsaarghh26 comments

I found this quote hilarious:

“I don’t think we want to send the message that companies can fund a political campaign for a referendum and maybe your customers won’t be subject to sales tax.”

Because it's not like some companies funded political campaigns to get this measure passed in the first place. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439650457620...)

Heaven forbid another big company ask what the citizenry thinks...

It's really patently unfair for purchases from Amazon.com not to require sales taxes while purchases from BarnesAndNoble.com do require sales taxes. That's what this all boils down to. Amazon is not, on some level, competing directly with your local friendly indy bookshop (if you still have one), and that's not the right direction to look for a comparison... but they are competing with other online booksellers, who have to pay sales tax on their online book sales if and only if they also have a bricks-and-mortar business. That's dumb.

Sales taxes fund local infrastructure. Why should Amazon have to pay for a fire department that it will never possibly need?

In regards to the "fairness" question, put it a different way: It's unfair that brick and mortar companies can offer their customers immediate gratification and the ability to physically inspect items before buying. Amazon can do neither.

Why should Amazon have to pay for a fire department that it will never possibly need?

It's certainly in Amazon's interest that their customers have access to those local FD's. Even if one doesn't agree with the FD example, those sales taxes also pay for local roads and surely Amazon makes use of those.

(Lest I be accused of being a hypocrite, I do pay the local sales tax for internet purchases via the Massachusetts 'safe harbor' provision for small purchases and itemized listings of my larger purchases with my state tax filings)

Amazon doesn't use local roads. Fedex, UPS, etc do.

Those companies all have a local presence and (presumably) pay their taxes to the state in which they operate. The taxes are then passed on to Amazon or the consumer in the form of higher prices on shipping.

As for local fire departments, I use Pivotal Tracker. Should Pivotal Labs be forced to pay Maharashtra taxes since it's in their best interest that my company not burn down?

Technically, Amazon isn't paying the tax. The resident buyer is; Amazon is just collecting it to pass along, same as with local businesses.

(The buyer still owes the tax if Amazon doesn't collect it – under 'Use Tax' laws – but that is easy to evade.)

Purchases from Amazon.com in states that don't have an Amazon.com presence (California in this instance) generally are taxed.

It's called "Use Tax", and it is your responsibility as a taxpayer to report it and pay it.

The Californian government wants Amazon.com to collect a sales tax, instead the use tax.

Either way the purchases are taxed, unless of course you choose to dodge your taxes...

With 2 day shipping through the prime service, they pretty much emulate a local retailer. The prices are awesome but I can see how their tax advantages give them an unfair advantage on local competition.

Because the user that is receiving the item is tax dodging Amazon should be punished?

Not punished, just asked that they collect sales tax instead of relying on customers to pay use tax.

Look at this not in terms of a big company like Amazon, but a start up or mom and pop web retailer which would be required to collect and distribute taxes to 50 different states. What a nightmare. The "no physical presence" exemption makes sense, and is very important.

50 different states and at least several thousand distinct regions (counties, cities, townships, etc) with different sales tax rates and different taxable item classifications. You can't even tell which one a customer lives in by their address.

uhmm.. so you mean to say Walmart.com have people who can handle problem this but Amazon cannot!?

To me, the implicit 10% discount to customer seems like major incentive for Amazon to not to do this rather than the technical difficulty of the issue.

I understand a startup having difficulty spending resources doing this, but not many startups have affiliates, Also, we should be worried that Amazon will cause states to make laws which will ultimately harm startups.

This is why Amazon's management has stated several times that they would prefer a national sales tax than dealing with this mess.

Amazon ran Target.com's web store... They know well how to solve this problem because they already did it!

Complexity is a flimsy excuse for a giant like Amazon.

True, but Amazon probably makes close to a billion in annual revenue in CA, I feel like that must account for some kind of taxable "presence."

I wasn't aware anyone actually declared their Amazon purchases at tax time.

I do as well. I sum up my online purchases from Amazon, add my wife's in, and pay the money. It goes to funding the things I use: Roads, firefighters, the library, the park next to my house. Heck, there was a fire two weeks ago in the apartment building next to where I live-- we sure as hell appreciated the firemen who came at 4:00am to prevent a catastrophe.

The argument above about how it's impossible/expensive/complicated/etc. to collect sales tax seems exceedingly bogus to me especially given the nature of HN: Sounds like a business problem to be solved, not some byzantine task. Someone should go make an online sales-tax-computing web service and be done with it.

Oh wait, someone did: http://salestaxwebservice.com/, http://www.avalara.com/products/avatax/calc, et cetera.

Deleted comment

I do. Amazon purchases are usually all I end up reporting, too -- not many other sites I buy things from that aren't the sites of brick-and-mortar stores (which collect the sales tax).

Especially if you are self-employed or own a business, the chances of NOT being audited eventually while never reporting any use taxes are not good.

I do.

Seriously.

What's even more annoying is amazon damn well does have a large physical presence in CA:

a2z: http://a2z.com/ : SF, OC, and San Luis Obispo;

A9: near caltrain, and from their page, "As A9 is a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of Amazon.com, we have the strength that comes from being part of a Fortune 500 company, and the flexibility and energy of a Silicon Valley start-up."

I'm ambivalent about the exception to collecting taxes for companies without an instate presence, but this is pure bullshit. Amazon operates multiple companies with hundreds of employees in CA. Just like other companies that take advantage of what CA has to offer, they should be forced to pay the tax man.

It's not as if Amazon is arguing that if the subsidiaries sell products in California they wouldn't be subject to sales tax. If you (earl) bought stock in a company in another state, does that give you a physical presence there and make whatever you sell subject to their sales tax? That company you are a partial (or full) owner of already pays sales tax in its state.

a2z makes the Amazon Appstore and Android MP3 player. So who gets taxed on those digital purchases?

Appstore apps are sold by Amazon Digital Services Inc. They also sell all the downloadable games and such on Amazon.com. I don't know what state that company is in, but that'd be the state that gets taxed.

None of those companies are the companies that are selling you things when you buy stuff off of Amazon.com.

If that company actually had a presence in CA (as it does in for example WA) you would pay sales tax in CA (as you do in WA).

This is exceedingly cut and dry. I don't understand why people have a hard time groking it. Even the Californian government gets it. That's why they have to go out of their way to drag Amazon Associates into the mess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com