"Amazon" Bill Waits In the Senate


Posted on 09 June 2011

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend by emailSend by email

By Brian Leubitz
Calitics

Back in January, I wrote up a little ditty about Asm. Nancy Skinner's AB 153 bill to require sales taxes collection for major retailers who mostly exist online, but have sizable presences in California.  Of course, this is really directed at Amazon.com, the world's biggest internet retailer.

The good news is that the bill passed the Assembly, after a modification requiring affiliate payments of over $500,000 rather than $10,000.  The change is relatively minor, irrelevant to Amazon, but actually could end up making a difference for some growing e-businesses.

You'll not be surprised that I'm mostly interested in this for the revenue purposes.  Sure, I pay my use tax (or guess at it anyway), but to be honest, few people do this.  To get that revenue, it really has to be done at the seller's side.

And that is where this bill comes in, requiring online retailers who use so-called "affiliates" to drive them business.  Basically, these are California folks (um, like me) who drive traffic to Amazon who then get a cut of sales.  New York has already used this legislation, and it is now pending in court.  We are breaking no new ground other than in a quantitative aspect.

But there is still the other argument, which is really more compelling to a wider swath of people that the lack of taxation on internet retailers is just a blow to small businesses in the state who do have to collect their local sales taxes.  Scott Hauge, the president of Small Business California, made this point quite well in an op-ed that originally appeared in the San Jose Merc back in March:

Unfortunately, a tax loophole being exploited in our state hurts small businesses and creates a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. Out-of-state, online-only vendors don't collect state sales taxes like brick-and-mortar stores are required to do. This loophole has given out-of-state, online-only retailers an unfair competitive advantage over retailers in our own community.  As a result, the brick-and-mortar small businesses that employ our family members, participate in our communities and are critical to our economy's recovery are operating at a loss, and jobs are at risk.

At its core, this is an issue of basic fairness. California businesses are being priced out of the marketplace because they are following the law and collecting the sales tax as required by law. All the while, online-only retail giants like Amazon.com are refusing to collect the sales tax by exploiting a loophole and passing on the liability to remit the sales tax to their consumers, many of whom have no idea the compliance burden falls on them to track and issue payment.

The result has meant that online-only retailers abusing an outdated system to get around collecting the sales tax can offer an artificially lower price. That's not fair, not right and not the way the marketplace should work. It is no way to do business in a 21st century economy.

Fortunately, our state has an opportunity to close the loophole, modernize the system and ensure small businesses are able to compete. Lawmakers can support Assembly Bill 153 by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner that will require out-of-state, online-only retailers to comply with the same requirements to collect sales taxes that California businesses must follow. (SBCal)

In the end, I think what should ultimately happen with the internet is that there should be some sort of federal sales tax which then gets divided down to the states.  Or...you know, totally overhaul the taxation system that would allow us to rely more on progressive taxation and less on the more regressive sales taxes.  But that last hope seems rather distant at this point.

In the short-term, the Senate should quickly pass AB 153 and get it to the Governor's desk.  Amazon has threatened to cut off their California affiliates, but as they showed in New York (but not Colorado) they are a bit more cautious on the big states.  Lets get this done, both for the revenue as well as the simple fairness of requiring the same taxation for all businesses.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brian Leubitz publishes Calitics.com, where this piece originally appeared. He holds a law degree from the University of Texas and a Master of Public Policy (M.P.P) from the Goldman School at The University of California, Berkeley.

To quote Einstein, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" is a mark of insanity.

Expecting legislation to end the sales tax inequity has been a sad tease for many years and all the waiting for matters to change only guarantees hollowing out of main street retail and before long Best Buy will follow Cicuit City to Big Box heaven.

All the valiant efforts to plug the pernicious inequity of the online sales tax loophole at the state level have either failed at the legislative level or have been rendered impotent by aggressive counter measures adopted by Amazon like cancelling affiliates etc.

Although the federal Main Street Fairness Act of Sen.Durbin/ Sen.Enzi might appear to be the answer, I am not sanguine about its prospects and it will likely die silently like Rep. Delahunt's efforts in the last congress. And I don’t think there will be any support from Obama who will not wish to alienate his silicon valley supporters like eBay & Google who oppose this legislation.

Therefore, the B&M retailers seeking to end the online sales tax loophole should re-think their tactics & strategy.

One way is to push for abolition of sales taxes for all items which are online buyable like electronics, books, appliances, shoes, clothes, diapers, etc. (food/groceries & prescription meds are exempt in most states). This should garner popular support and resonate with the anti-tax sentiment of the tea party crowd.

Additionally, big box brick & mortar should spin-off their online operations and headquarter them in no-tax states and derive revenues from brand licensing, logistic services like warehousing, pickup & returns and other legal arms-length nexus-isolated arrangements where both B&M and its independent online avatar can synergestically benefit. An example would be, Barnes & Noble, there is no reason for its Big Box bookstores and Nook/eBook operations be one entity. B&M Barnes&Noble can continue as a physical bookseller while deriving revenues from an independent online Barne&Noble thru brand licensing fees etc.

Only when states face the clear & present reality of vanishing revenues will this issue garner any urgency.

Sign up to Receive Daily or Weekly Digests from CPR!
Email:

Jerry Brown on HSR: “Plant the Seeds for Future Growth”

Sen. Bernie Sanders on CNN: "Wall Street Regulates Congress"

Breaking News