Comments on: Amazon vs New York – Affiliate Can of Worms

By: Hunter Jackson

Hunter Jackson — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:44:41 +0000

Are you not ’supposed’ to report the items you purchased online, or other non taxable areas on your tax return? wouldnt that solve everything? …not that anyone does it

By: property bulgaria

property bulgaria — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:47:56 +0000

Iâ€™m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is a temporary technical problem rather than a concerted effort to censor public feedback and appease real estate advertisers.

By: George

George — Wed, 14 May 2008 01:13:44 +0000

I am not a lawyer and not an expert in the constitution, but I recall looking into this issue before when my wife first started an online business. I am fairly sure that what NY is considering is unconstitutional and will be shot down by the court system. It may need to reach the Supreme court first, but I can’t imagine that this will hold up in court.

It would be VERY bad for online business in this country if this does manage to stand up through the court system. I really hope NY fails. I also imagine that other big companies in the US with an Internet presence will get involved in the near future.

By: property bulgaria

property bulgaria — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:03:01 +0000

Ah. Isn’t there somewhere in the history of law where it’s considered double jeopardy taxes when two states tax the same sale? Isn’t that what’s going to happen if New York taxes Amazon’s non New York resident affiliates? Because I imagine that what is what’s going to happen in many cases.

By: Megapixels

Megapixels — Wed, 07 May 2008 10:58:07 +0000

It’s unfortunate, but inevitable as well. Anything new that becomes as successful as internet selling will show up on a government radar somewhere. This would be a nightmare / expensive to police and administer. Hopefully Amazon wins, otherwise the floodgates will be open for every state to do the same.

By: John W. Furst

John W. Furst — Tue, 06 May 2008 11:42:52 +0000

Obviously a controversial subject. ‘NY’ says it’s not a new tax, just the attempt to collect an existing one. Whoever expected consumers to do bookkeeping on out-of-state in the first place , e.g. 3.77, 10.59, 45.23, 1.23, … $ and alike purchases was a fool. It’s certainly in a whole different dimension in the X0,000.00 $ jewelry business, but people are people and will always look for some ’savings’ unless they are stopped systematically. Even before the Internet people bought in 47th Street in Manhatten and had their diamonds shipped to an out-of-state address, hadn’t they. As mentioned earlier, I think this calls for a federal solution applicable in each and every state in the same fashion otherwise it just is not fair to some residents and unfair to businesses, who will be forced to comply with a myriad of different standard.

The second issue I ‘hear’ is obviously that more and more folks disagree with government misspending. For sure that’s true everywhere all over the globe. I join your outcry, too.

By: Feydakin

Feydakin — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:49:20 +0000

Marsha, do you pay your “use tax” on items you order over the internet??

By: Marsha

Marsha — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:19:28 +0000

I am a New Yorker and I am rooting for Amazon. The horrible politicians here don’t know what to tax next. We are so heavily taxed here that my family and I are thinking of leaving. If I still live here when Patterson tries to run for Governor I will definitely not vote for him and will campaign against him. He has allowed so much pork barrel spending in his budget and is trying to hurt the consumers with this unscrupulous internet tax. I say GO AMAZON!

By: tony

tony — Mon, 05 May 2008 04:38:58 +0000

I really think that tax has to be tied up with someone physical residence because thats where he is using the most of resources that was funded by tax such as infrastructure etc. Even if he makes money somewhere else, his physical residence is still the one resources that “being used” the most.

By: Dave Toys

Dave Toys — Sun, 04 May 2008 19:43:31 +0000

Great post. Good to see Google have given you your PR back :)