Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Online Sales Taxes’ Category

Lost amid the rancorous debate over raising the debt ceiling, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin on Friday afternoon rolled out proposed legislation that would clear the way for a federally-mandated online sales tax in states that participate in the Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SST).

The Main Street Fairness Act would essentially reverse the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision dictating that states must rely on physical presence in determining whether or not to force web retailers to collect sales taxes.  Durbin’s move promises to ramp up a heated debate at the federal level between interests on both sides of the online sales tax issue.

“Main Street retailers collect sales taxes on behalf of consumers, why shouldn’t online retailers do the same?” Durbin said during an announcement of the legislation.  “In 2012, states across the country, including Illinois, are expected to lose as much as $24 billion in uncollected state and local taxes on internet and catalogue sales.  From 2005 to 2010 the state of Illinois estimated it lost $153 million each year.  The Main Street Fairness Act doesn’t ask anyone to pay a single penny more in taxes.  Instead, it would help governors and mayors collect taxes that are already owed.”

The SST figured to be the best available resource for bringing about federal control over how and where retailers can collect unpaid online sales taxes.  The program is designed to help states simplify their sales tax laws to facilitate merchants’ efforts to collect sales taxes across multiple states.

More than 20 states currently participate in the SST.

In a bit of a surprise move, Amazon’s vice president for global public policy Paul Misener wrote a letter to Durbin actually praising the Main Street Fairness Act:

“Thank you for your bill that would allow states that sufficiently simplify their rules to require collection of sales tax by out-of-state sellers,” the letter stated.  “Amazon looks forward to working with you and your colleagues in Congress to help enact sales tax legislation.”

Other retail interests weren’t nearly as excited. eBay’s senior director of government relations and global public policy Brian Bieron told Internet Retailer that the legislation would actually hurt smaller merchants, of which eBay has many.

“Forcing small businesses to take on the same costs and tax burdens as national retail businesses is unrealistic, unfair and will unbalance the playing field between giant retailers and small business retailers on the Internet,” he said.

Of course, the ‘level playing field’ angle has been one played up by brick and mortar retail interests for quite some time when debating the merit of online sales taxes.  Lobbying groups like the NRF have made it their cornerstone argument in pushing for better solutions to the tax issue.  As such, it’s interesting to hear eBay make the claim that a federally mandated collection program would actually hurt smaller merchants.

Nevertheless, there are other items that promise to frame the debate on the Main Street Fairness Act moving forward as well.  The biggest might just be how much revenue the law, if passed, would actually generate.  Durbin’s estimate is based on a recent study by the University of Tennessee but other concerned parties—namely the Direct Marketing Association and the online retail group NetChoice—have argued that figure is way too high and that a nationwide sales tax would stifle e-commerce.

We’ll keep tabs on this as new developments emerge but suffice to say it could move pretty quickly now that the debt ceiling issue is in the rearview mirror and quite a few states are facing serious budgetary shortfall questions in the coming weeks and months.

As always, leave us a comment!

Read Full Post »

The rise in new online sales tax bills in states across the nation has been a top story within the e-commerce and business press over the course of the past year or so.  It seems, however, that not everyone is reading those stories.

In a newly released survey sponsored by the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), 64 percent of consumers in states that have enacted new internet taxation laws either don’t know or do not believe that they’re required to remit sales taxes on web purchases when a retailer does not collect them on their own.

“The results of this study point out that there are widespread consumer misperceptions about the requirement to pay sales tax on Internet purchases,” said Michael Kercheval, CEO and president of ICSC.  “The data shows people are confused as to whether or not they are – or should be – paying tax on online purchases.”

While the study does not elaborate on why so many people are confused about the existence of the new taxes (we’ll get to that later), it does contain some other relevant important data.

For example, 93 percent of the 1,000 consumers polled said they would continue to shop online if taxes were collected at the point of purchase, and even in the event of 100 percent compliance on online sales tax collection among merchants, consumer online shopping behavior would not be materially or substantively impacted much.

Despite that, it would appear that online shopping has not completely made traditional shopping and retail storefronts obsolete just yet.

Nearly three quarters of the consumers believe brick and mortar stores have an “important role to play in the 21st century marketplace.”  And in that vein, many of the respondents selected “choice” and “convenience” as key decision criteria, in addition to price, when contemplating a purchase.  This indicates at least a continued partial reliance on brick and mortar shopping options.

From our vantage point, the ICSC seems to be supporting online sales taxes in order to level the playing field with brick and mortar retailers, which is to be expected given the scope of their work.  The study’s press release openly touts the Main Street Fairness Act, which we’ve covered here before, calling it a first step toward establishing that marketplace for a new century.

Still, we can’t help but wonder if this study was more focused on the confusion surrounding new taxes or simply a way to beat the drum for brick and mortar retailers on the whole.  Granted, the ICSC does adequately identify a problem here, citing low consumer compliance with tax rules for online purchases.  And yes, the study does make the next logical connection: that such consumer misconceptions have led to an unfair advantage for online retailers over their brick and mortar counterparts.

But why does the ICSC then go on to tout mostly vague data about the importance of those brick and mortar stores rather than delving deeper into the obvious question that arises from this study (at least in our opinion):  why are consumers confused about their online sales tax responsibilities?  Is it a question of poor communication between lawmakers, regulators and their constituents?  Are shoppers feigning ignorance?  Are retailers not informing shoppers of their tax duty?  Is the confusion a by-product of hastily written and implemented laws that don’t include adequate considerations for enforcement?

Now look, economists, we are not.  But when nearly two-thirds of the shoppers in states using online sales taxes are in the dark on the issue, it certainly begs the question: what’s the point of a tax if no one knows about it and thus, isn’t paying it?  If online sales taxes are to fulfill the aim they’re designed for, then there needs to be a better analysis and reconciliation of this confusion that the ICSC says is rampant among shoppers.

What’s your take?  Why are consumers confused about paying online sales taxes?  Leave us a comment with your response.

Read Full Post »

It seems as though Indiana and Pennsylvania, two states that have yet to pursue internet sales tax laws like so many others around the nation, are being rewarded for their position on the issue by Amazon.

Amazon, which along with Overstock.com has assumed a leading voice for the e-commerce industry in the ongoing debate over the necessity and constitutionality of such tax bills, has announced plans to open a new fulfillment center in Indiana and increase hiring at a similar facility in Pennsylvania in the near future.

Several hundred workers, many of them full-time, will be employed at each of the facilities, reiterating the huge impact that such moves can have on local economies and job markets.

In announcing a new 900,000 square-foot distribution facility in Plainfield, IN that is set to open by the end of the summer, Amazon didn’t mince any words in explaining why it is increasing its presence in the Hoosier State.

“We’re expanding in Indiana because Gov. Daniels and other state officials have demonstrated their commitment to Amazon jobs and investment,” said Dave Clark, vice president, Amazon North American operations.

Once the Plainfield center is open, Amazon will have a total of four fulfillment centers in Indiana, all of which are operated by subsidiary Amazon.com.indc LLC.  The subsidiary tie is an important one, as Indiana does not consider Amazon subsidiaries the basis for the in-state presence that may otherwise necessitate the company collecting taxes for web purchases.

California recently became the latest state to pass an online tax law with a provision requiring companies that operate subsidiaries to comply with sales tax collections.

Meanwhile, Amazon has put out the Help Wanted sign at its Breinigsville, PA fulfillment center as well, with plans to bring in a wave of new workers for the facility just outside of Allentown.

“We’re excited to be hiring for hundreds of additional jobs at Amazon’s fulfillment centers in Pennsylvania this summer,” Clark said in a separate statement.

The lesson here seems pretty obvious: if you’re a state that isn’t going to try to get an online sales tax implemented anytime soon, the chances of Amazon doing business with you looks pretty good. Amazon’s got more than 60 of these fulfillment centers operating around the globe and the company has wasted no time in closing centers or abandoning plans for new ones in states that have aggressively pursued new sales taxes.  What has happened in such states, as well as these recent developments in Indiana and Pennsylvania, further illustrates that Amazon can dictate state policy with regards to taxes just as much as states can dictate whether Amazon does business in them or not.

And it also proves that the showdown between both sides isn’t going away anytime soon.  As always, we welcome your thoughts and comments!

Read Full Post »

In what’s become standard operating procedure for the two e-tail giants, Amazon and Overstock have wasted no time in terminating their respective affiliate programs in California after the state become the seventh in the nation to initiate an online sales tax yesterday.

California Governor Jerry Brown signed the law into effect Wednesday as part of a broader piece of legislation addressing state budget issues, calling it “a common sense idea.”

As is the case with similar laws in other U.S. states, the new law enables California’s tax board to collect sales taxes from out-of-state retailers that operate affiliate programs in the state.  Proponents of the measure estimate that it could add up to $317 million a year in revenue to the state’s coffers.

Naturally, brick and mortar merchants in California are thrilled with the decision, saying it is long overdue and that it should finally level a playing field that has been slanted in the direction of the likes of Amazon and Overstock all along.

On the other side, things aren’t quite as rosy.  Following through on promises they both made leading up to the law’s passage, Amazon and Overstock quickly announced the end of their California affiliate programs.

“We oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive,” Amazon said in an email to state affiliates notifying them that the program had been terminated.  “It is supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside California, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors.”

Overstock, which reportedly did $1 billion in e-tail business in 2010, offered a very similar proclamation.

“We think this law is unconstitutional,” said Mark Griffin, the company’s general counsel.  “We sent a final note to our California affiliates today. It’s a business decision that we had to make.”

California’s Board of Equalization estimates that there are more than 25,000 affiliates in the state, 10,000 of which worked with Amazon.  Those people will now need to find alternative means of income in the wake of the law’s passage.

Despite pulling out of the state, Amazon may not be completely off the hook.  The law has a secondary provision included that forces retailers with subsidiaries in California to collect sales tax as well.  Amazon has several subsidiaries in California, such as Lab126, which develops the Kindle e-reader.

California joining the six other states nationwide that have enacted online sales tax laws is certainly foreboding for retailers and affiliates everywhere else.  If even the nation’s wealthiest state must resort to implementing such a law in order to try to dig itself out from a mountain of debt, it stands to reason that the floodgates could soon open as smaller and less wealthy states do the same.

Leave us your thoughts and comments!

Read Full Post »

Striking at least a temporary blow to proponents of state-proposed online sales taxes, Texas Governor Rick Perry has vetoed a bill authored by his colleagues in the legislature intended to enact such taxes on web and catalog retailers in the state.

House Bill 2403, originally introduced by state Rep. John Otto earlier this year , was designed to simplify the parameters of a retailer’s in-state physical presence and thus, their requirement to pay sales taxes.  Most significantly, the bill would have required web retailers to remit sales taxes if they were operating distribution centers in the state through a subsidiary.

Perry called for a ‘thorough policy discussion’ between Texas lawmakers, consumers, retailers, and technology experts to find a more equitable solution to the issue as part of his veto.

“I have serious concerns about the impact and appropriateness of House Bill No. 2403,” Perry said in his veto statement.  “In particular, I believe this legislation risks significant unintended consequences.”

An in-state physical presence, which is required by the U.S. Supreme Court in order for a state to collect sales taxes from retailers, is also referred to as ‘nexus’ within the parameters of the situation.  Otto’s bill seemed to specifically target retailers that skirt the nexus issue by running distribution centers and other facilities through a subsidiary.  Not surprisingly, one of the most noteworthy retailers to engage in such a practice, Amazon, was pretty happy with the veto.

“We’ve long supported a truly simple, national approach, evenhandedly applied,” said Amazon’s vice president of global public policy Paul Misener.  “This is federalism at work and many states are making the right decision to seek a federal solution.”

Perry’s veto doesn’t come as a complete shock, particularly due to his reputation as a staunch pro-business/anti-tax Republican.  He also harshly criticized state Comptroller Susan Combs when she sought nearly $270 million in uncollected sales taxes from Amazon back in February.

The Texas Legislature cannot override the veto because it was signed at the end of the legislative calendar on May 30, but that doesn’t mean the issue is dead.  Lawmakers are contemplating adding several components of Otto’s bill—particularly those pertaining to physical presence—into another piece of legislation, Senate Bill 1, which addresses a number of state fiscal matters.

Thoughts on the action in Texas? Leave us your comments below!

Read Full Post »

Repeating a program it implemented in four other states in April, Ovestock.com has ceased affiliate operations in Connecticut this week after the state became the latest to adopt online tax legislation and will be focusing resources on Connecticut shoppers instead.

As it already does in New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Illinois, Overstock will take money it would’ve directed towards affiliates in Connecticut and instead divert it to in-state members of the retailer’s Club O loyalty program.

Connecticut’s online tax law is scheduled to go into effect on July 1 and will require merchants that total more than $2,000 in annual sales from affiliates to collect sales taxes.

Overstock, naturally, isn’t too fond of the law.

“We have severed relationships with all of our affiliates in Connecticut, and have taken the money we would normally pay those affiliates, and are using it to reward our best customers in those states,” said Overstock CEO Patrick Bayne, who called the Connecticut law unconstitutional.

So what are Connecticut-based Overstock customers going to get?

Those that have spent more than $300 on the site over the past year will get free Club O memberships with an extra $10 thrown in. Shoppers already enrolled in the loyalty program will have their memberships extended for another year and receive the additional $10 added to their rewards account as well.

Club O memberships normally run about $20 annually and include 5 percent off of every purchase made on Overstock, free shipping on items over $25 and exclusive access to special sales and promotions.

Neither Overstock nor Amazon has shown any qualms about simply packing up shop in states that enact online sales tax bills in the past two years or so.  And with 5 states now on board with Overstock’s reactive strategy to online tax legislation, the question really becomes whether or not such a strategy will ultimately force lawmakers to consider the impact online sales tax bills will have on affiliates in those states before they enact such legislation.

What do you think? Leave your thoughts and comments!

Read Full Post »

Not to be outdone by eBay’s acquisition of a mobile advertising services provider last week , online marketer ValueClick has picked up one of its own.

ValueClick announced today that it will pay about $70 million in cash for the brand-focused mobile ad network Greystripe, Inc.  With its own online ad network (ValueClick Media) and the affiliate network Commission Junction already in the mix, the new move should provide ValueClick with immediate results a fast-growing U.S. mobile  advertising market that’s worth more than $1 billion already.

“Greystripe accelerates ValueClick’s move ‘up the marketing funnel’ with brand advertisers and gives ValueClick Media immediate scale and expertise in the large and fast-growing mobile ad market,” said Jim Zarley, ValueClick CEO.  “We see great traffic and revenue synergies between ValueClick and Greystripe, and we’re looking forward to working closely with the Greystripe team to take full advantage of the opportunities that this combination offers.”

So what exactly is ValueClick getting for that $70 million?

Greystripe, which is headquartered in San Francisco and supported by office in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle and Detroit as well, has a proprietary advertising platform that serves up billions of rich media impressions to more than 30 million touch-screen devices users nationwide through 3,500 different application titles and mobile sites.  The company has also established solid relationships with a host of Fortune 500 advertisers across a host of verticals, including retail, entertainment, technology, consumer products and automotive.

All of that bodes well for ValueClick, which expects Greystripe to account for between $24-26 million in revenue for the year.

As a result of the transaction, Greystripe’s management team and pool of employees will be retained and the group will now be run as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ValueClick Media.

“All of us at Greystripe are proud of our accomplishments, and joining ValueClick positions us to accelerate our rapid growth in mobile brand advertising,” said Michael Chang, CEO of Greystripe.  “We are thrilled to continue to serve our major brand clients as a mobile rich media leader while leveraging ValueClick’s breadth and depth in online marketing.”

As always, leave us your thoughts and comments!

Read Full Post »

In a legislative action that could be mirrored in the future by even more states currently implementing internet sales taxes, lawmakers in Texas are poised to send a bill to the governor’s desk that would once and for all put to rest the physical presence defense that Amazon and other retailers have used to argue against taxing online sales based on their affiliates and subsidiaries.

This latest development certainly raises the stakes in Texas.  As our regular readers well know, the Lone Star State is one of a handful of U.S. battlegrounds for the ongoing saga over taxing internet purchases.  It’s also one that Amazon has already withdrawn from over the issue.

House Bill 2043, which was authored and introduced by state Rep. John Otto (R), leaves no doubt over how out-of-state retailer’s physical presence in Texas is defined.  As a result, it essentially kills the argument made by the e-commerce community that subsidiaries don’t constitute a physical presence in the state and thus are exempt from complying with state law over the collection of sales tax for online purchases.

The bill recently got a unanimous stamp of approval from the Texas House Ways and Means committee and supporters hope to send it to the governor before May 31, when the current legislative session comes to a close.

Otto and supporters claim that the new bill was not designed specifically in response to Amazon’s decision to sever its ties with Texas based affiliates, but instead, to offer a more “level playing field” among both online and offline retailers.

At its core, the legislation is an attempt at fairness and legalizing what the state’s comptroller’s office already practices.  The resulting legislation will make it impossible for any merchant to operate a subsidiary in the state that supports its overall retail operation and then claim no physical presence when the tax man comes calling.

And, perhaps anticipating the legal wrangling and maneuvering that could ensue if or when the bill is finally enacted into law, Otto made a point to craft legislation that will withstand any legal challenges to it.

“I drafted what I believe will outlast any Supreme Court challenge,” he said, pointing out that he brought on a constitutional law attorney to help review the ins and outs of the bill itself.

Since Amazon has already left Texas behind, it’s hard to see this new development affecting the web’s top retailer.  But if passed (and the consensus is that it will), it will certainly give other retailers in similar situations reason to pause and consider the value of their operations in Texas.

As always, leave us your thoughts and comments!

Read Full Post »

Here’s an interesting twist on the continuing saga taking place nationwide on the issue of online sales taxes.

Overstock.com, which follows only Amazon on the list of web retailers that stand to lose the most from affiliate online sales tax legislation sprouting up in various states, has come up with a new promotion that seeks to take some of the bad publicity from the issue and turn it into a reason to reward loyal customers.

The promotion, which will be available only to shoppers in Illinois, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island (states that have already enacted affiliate online sales tax laws), will take money that Overstock normally would spend on its affiliates in those states and direct those funds to its best customers instead.

It’s a pretty innovative idea, if for no other reason than it lets Overstock put a positive spin on something that has been nothing but a headache for online retailers and shoppers as well.

Much like Amazon, Overstock has chosen to end relationships with affiliates in states that have enacted online sales tax laws that it considers to be unconstitutional, rather than keep the partnerships going and be subject to paying more in taxes as a result.  While this has created a void in the total number of Overstock affiliates, it has apparently also led to a bit of a financial surplus.

And it will be Overstock’s biggest spenders in Illinois, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island who will reap the benefits of that surplus.

Overstock customers in those four states who spent at least $300 on the site last year will receive a free membership in the company’s Club O Rewards program, normally a $20 value.  Club O members are entitled to special promotions, free shipping and 5 percent rewards on all purchases, and new enrollees as a result of the promotion will also get $10 in their Club O accounts as well.

With an estimated 150,000 customers in the four states eligible to cash in on the promotion, it should cost Overstock about $4.5 million to implement.  That is, however, assuming that every single customer receives both the Club O membership and all rewards points.   Regardless, it’s a heavy investment in securing customer support for Overstock’s affiliate decisions and one that we think most shoppers will take advantage of.

Live in one of those four states?  Planning on taking advantage of the offer?  Leave us your thoughts and comments!

Read Full Post »

We’ve been warning our readers for awhile that the proliferation of state online tax legislation was only going to continue here in 2011.  We weren’t kidding.

Lo and behold, Arkansas last week became the latest state to move closer to an affiliate tax that so many other states have either adopted or are in the process of considering.

SB 738, also known as both the Amazon Tax law and the Main Street Fairness law down in The Natural State, passed the Arkansas General Assembly last week and has been sent to Governor Mike Beebe’s desk.   Beebe, a Democrat, has already gone on the record supporting the bill so final approval should come sooner rather than later.

Mirroring similar legislation in other parts of the country, the measure’s primary action would be a requirement that retailers begin collecting sales taxes if they have affiliate partnerships within the state’s borders and do more than $10,000 a year in sales.

Once Beebe signs the bill into law, Arkansas will become the fifth state overall to enact affiliate/sales tax legislation, following in the footsteps of New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Illinois.

Illinois is the only one of the bunch to actually pass such a bill into law here in 2011, but according to some experts, there are similar pending bills up for review in at least another ten states across the nation right now as well.  As such, we could be seeing the first of a steady stream of new state tax laws over the coming months that will dwarf those passed just a year ago.

Of course, the biggest question now (as has been the case in those other four states) is how the Arkansas bill will affect Amazon.  The very fact that Amazon’s name has found its way into the bill’s aliases proves that the company is in the crosshairs of this kind of legislation more than any other. Amazon’s actions in response to online tax bills lately have served as an example for other retailers affected by the bills as well.

We couldn’t find any official response from Amazon about SB 738 (while ironically, Walmart, which calls Arkansas home, supports it) but it’s not hard envision the company severing ties with its Arkansas’ affiliates, just as it has done in several other states.  Simply put, it makes more financial sense for Amazon to just pull out of states with tax laws it considers burdensome rather than stick around.  We wouldn’t be surprised to see Amazon officially end its’ affiliate relationships in Arkansas within a month of Governor Beebe’s approval of the new law.

But what do you think? Leave us your thoughts on this latest online sales tax development!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: