10 ms·

Connecticut Killed Affiliate Marketing with Amazon.com

100 points by foxhop 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Vivtek 15y ago
Is anybody keeping track of which states this applies to? I know Illinois was (one of?) the first, and now obviously CT as well. Which states remain?
- zaidf 15y ago
  North Carolina, I think, is one of them.
  - RobbieHodge 15y ago
    NC is one for sure. Lost my account after many years. Considering leaving the state because of it.
- sixtofour 15y ago
  Colorado
- unshift 15y ago
  This same thing happened in Colorado a few months back, and I think California has a similar bill on the horizon
- jonknee 15y ago
  Amazon is (obviously). https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/associates/agreement https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/associates/agreement > In addition, if at any time following your enrollment in the Program you become a resident of Colorado, Illinois, North Carolina, Rhode Island, or Connecticut, you will become ineligible to participate in the Program, and this Operating Agreement will automatically terminate, on the date you establish residency in that state.
- davidw 15y ago
  !Oregon - there is no sales tax there.
  - olefoo 15y ago
    Ssshh; Portland is already overrun with people who are online marketing experts... don't bring more of them.
_delirium 15y ago
A more accurate headline would be: Amazon.com kills affiliate marketing in Connecticut, due to dissatisfaction with new Connecticut law.
- jonknee 15y ago
  If a state enacts a law that will make a business lose money without changing polices, it's not the company's fault if they change policies. Amazon's pullout was a completely known outcome of the law well before it was put into place.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    Sure, companies can do whatever they wish (within the law) in response to any factors they choose to take into account. But I think it's still Amazon making the decision here; from the headline, I had thought that Connecticut banned affiliate programs or something. I'd similarly say that Boeing's move from Seattle to Chicago, partly due to tax policies, was a decision made by Boeing, not by Seattle.
    - jonknee 15y ago
      By that logic, the state can never be to blamed when making decisions that affect businesses. This wasn't an unintended consequence--every time a similar law has passed Amazon has acted identically on the exact day that it begins.
      - _delirium 15y ago
        I'm not saying the state can't be blamed, either, just that the headline is misleading. My comment was not a political one, but one about headlines that editorialize at the expense of clarity. If you want to emphasize the state's culpability, that can still be done with somethting like, "Connecticut tax change causes Amazon to pull affiliate program". I do think Amazon's action was predictable, but it's still Amazon's action. I'm also not quite sure it was mandated by the decision; I suspect Amazon could still turn a profit even by retaining its CT affiliate program, but with the current landscape (% of states that do versus don't have such laws) it was a better business decision to pull out. Amazon is also probably looking at it as a strategic move to put pressure on other states, rather than considering the CT business case in isolation.
hvs 15y ago
Illinois did something similar with what it called the "Mainstreet Fairness Act" in March [1]. Illinois, as you may know, was rated as the worst state in the country for debt last year [2]. These states would rather chase after more revenues (and chase companies out of their states in the process) rather than have to do the hard work of actually cutting spending. [1] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-10/business/ct-biz-0311-amazon-tax-bill-20110310_1_amazon-and-overstock-main-street-fairness-act-sales-tax http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-10/business/ct-bi... [2] http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/44/debt-10_Global-Debt-Crisis_Rank_2.html http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/44/debt-10_Global-Debt-Cris...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - cheez 15y ago
    Think about the children.
- raganwald 15y ago
  There are two orthogonal questions to ask: 1. How much should states tax their citizens? and: 2. Given a certain amount of tax to collect, what is/are the best mechanism(s)? You seem to be talking to point number one. Eliminating sales tax or collecting it from fewer transactions would accomplish that, but so would applying the law exactly as CT applies it but lowering the percentage collected on each transaction. For that reason, I find it confusing to look at a situation like this and slide into arguing about cutting spending. If they should tax people less, fine, but that's orthogonal to the question of how they tax people and the consequences of the tax mechanisms they choose to employ.
- jwhite 15y ago
  The phrase "Mainstreet Fairness Act" sounds like something directly out of Atlas Shrugged.
- fleitz 15y ago
  Why is cutting spending hard work? You just write a lower number on the budget, voila, less gets spent. I mean the only thing you really have to do to cut spending is for a Governor to refuse to sign the budget, spending gets cut automatically. In my opinion cutting spending is less work.
irons 15y ago
I've heard about Amazon pulling this tactic in NY and other states that forced them to start collecting sales tax, but that is one breathtakingly petulant letter. What exactly is the constitutional issue they're alluding to? (I live in Washington state, where Amazon has always collected sales tax, so personally it seems like a non-issue.)
- hvs 15y ago
  The issue is collecting sales tax for items bought outside of their state. Interstate commerce is a federal jurisdiction. If they collect sales tax in Washington state, it's because they have an office there.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    In Amazon's case, they have a lot of offices in Washington state, including their headquarters. They have always collected WA sales tax.
  - irons 15y ago
    That's not a constitutional argument for Amazon's position. You're obligated to pay sales tax on items purchased out of state, by annual remittance. Almost nobody does it, but if you're ever audited (by your state), they can ding you if you don't. Amazon is plenty big enough to be specifically called out by cash-strapped state governments for, effectively, encouraging people to evade the law.
andrewpi 15y ago
Anyone know the status of Amazon's litigation with New York State? Amazon still charges sales tax to NY addresses.
- username98 15y ago
  I don't get why Amazon didn't cut off all its New York affiliates yet.
forgetcolor 15y ago
IL also mandated a boycott of Amazon for any state procurement. IOW no state employee can buy goods from Amazon using state purchasing methods (refardless of aource of funds). Of course it's not like any sales taxes were paid by tne state since they're exempt.
jonkelly 15y ago
I'm still kind of mystified as to how these laws keep getting passed. I think there is clearly room for debate about whether or not Amazon customers should pay sales tax in their home jurisdictions. But, there is no reasonable debate about these laws. They have perfectly predictable results: law is passed, Amazon nukes affiliates, state loses income tax from affiliates, gains nothing as a result. I find it incredible that state lawmakers either think that it will be different in their state or that it's worth destroying the incomes of their taxpayers to just make a symbolic gesture. Does anyone have a reasonable justification for the lawmakers' actions or is it really just a mix of idiocy, vindictiveness, and appeasement of local donors?
- fierarul 15y ago
  Think of it as a signaling game: what happens when all the US states have similar laws. Will Amazon just give up on affiliates?
  - gscott 15y ago
    With the widespread adoption of the Google Content network for advertising I am wondering if affiliate links are needed because they can just show up in the Google ad and the advertiser gets paid for clicks. The previous affiliate can still make a page about a product but let Google figure out the links to show.
  - nostromo 15y ago
    Remember, there are five states that do not charge sales tax, so they have no incentive to fight Amazon. There are another five states where Amazon already collects sales tax. So, that's 10 states that have no reason to pass similar laws. And of course, affiliates that make a sizable amount of money will probably not move, but will instead simply incorporate in one of those states (one of which happens to be Delaware).
    - jonkelly 15y ago
      Exactly. There are plenty of choices of jurisdiction for the bigger affiliates that matter to Amazon. This is really just a "nuke the mom and pop blogger" effect.
karlkrantz 15y ago
It wasn't just Amazon, but also sites owned by Amazon, including Audible. Amazon and Audible were my two sources of revenue for my site thestartupdaily.com Yesterday both accounts were closed with no advanced notice and my business model is effectively broken. While I support Amazon for taking a stand, I'm angry at Amazon for not giving some sort of warning to affiliates. It also seems like they wasted a good opportunity to get people who are most passionate about the issue to make some noise for them. The could have sent emails to affiliates as the issue was unfolding, and instead of the short and rather unfriendly letter to affiliates saying "your contract has been terminated". They should have used that notice to give people more information and phone numbers and other contact details about who is behind this. Seems to me like big chain stores buying protectionist legislation and selling it to voters as "protecting small business", while in reality they are protecting yesterday's dinosaurs and screwing forward thinking Internet based businesses.
- dangrossman 15y ago
  You've had years of notice. Amazon did exactly the same thing with Illinois, Colorado, Hawaii, North Carolina... Amazon has publicly said it would do the same thing in Connecticut for months.
  - karlkrantz 15y ago
    Of course I knew it was a possibility, but my point is that "saying publicly" in press releases or court rooms is a lot different from having a conversation with your customers or partners. Telling people that the affiliate program will be closed to them in 30 days would have been a lot nicer than telling people that their income stops effective immediately.
    - dangrossman 15y ago
      Then they'd have to collect sales tax from Connecticut customers for 30 days. They'd piss off a lot more people than their affiliates, including their customers for suddenly collecting taxes they didn't used to collect, to their shareholders for creating mass customer confusion just to be nice to affiliates.
bwb 15y ago
Arkansas did too earlier this week.
mikiem 15y ago
Retailers, on-line or otherwise, have to pay sales tax on sales within a state where they have a physical presence. That's the way it is. The problem in this case is that CT wants sales tax on a sale that was referred by an affiliate... Even when the retailer (Amazon) and the customer are both not located in CT. In states that charge sales tax, most (all?) charge "use tax" of the same amount as sales tax, on items shipped to them from an out-of-state retailer that did not charge sales tax. Retailer customers almost never pay it, probably don't know it exists. Sates usually don't go after the tax for consumers, but they do go after businesses for it (at least they do in CA) presumably because the amount of tax is potentially much higher. In other words, technically, you have to pay sales tax when you buy something, and if you don't then you're supposed to pay the equivalent amount in "use tax". In this case, CT is trying to wedge in there and get tax when neither the buyer or the retailer are in CT. It's not a business killer for Amazon to charge and pay the taxes for every state. Many on-line retailers do. There is software and subscription services to keep billing systems up to date with current tax tables. But, who pays sales/use tax on what when a guy in CA buys something from Amazon that was referred by a CT affiliate? What about when someone in a state where Amazon has no physical presence buys from Amazon through a CT affiliate? My brain hurts and I suspect someone's getting screwed.
- mtumbrel 15y ago
  I think the point is that very few CT residents actually pay the use tax, and the situation they're trying to catch is where the buyer is in CT. If Amazon had a retail presence, it would be collecting that tax and forwarding it to CT, and this law was an attempt to define affiliates as a retail presence. I agree that it's not a "business killer", but lower prices drive sales, and that's why they've fought so hard to collect nothing. Frankly I found the one-sided slant of the article a little nauseating. Couldn't you as easily say that Amazon has been abetting tax evasion for years? Who moved your cheese? Was it the Connecticut legislature or Amazon? Well, yes. Connecticut wants that 6%. Not sometimes. Always. So they passed a law. Given a choice between collecting a 6% tax and hanging out their long-time affiliates partners to dry, Amazon picked the latter. Even though I live in a high-tax state with a similar use tax requirement, I don't think Amazon's position is reasonable. Use tax compliance rates are generally pitiful. Both state and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act allow for this kind of use tax. Local sales tax collection is not optional. The goods in question do not magically teleport into the homes of Connecticut residents. They come over state roads, often carried by state residents in big trucks. If they weren't bought over the internet, they'd be bought at stores where residents would be paying 6% or more.
rwg 15y ago
Some food for thought regarding Amazon and sales tax: Amazon has plans to build and operate a distribution warehouse near Columbia, South Carolina. State and local leaders rolled out the red carpet for Amazon -- a free building site, property tax cuts, employment tax credits, and the repeal of a county law prohibiting Sunday morning sales. But Amazon also wanted a five year exemption on collecting South Carolina sales tax. After all, they would have a physical presence in the state, and there's absolutely no ambiguity about whether or not they'd have to collect sales tax at that point. When the state legislature voted "no" on the sales tax exemption, Amazon immediately stopped construction on the warehouse and took down all of the job listings for that location. There was a huge uproar, with supporters of the exemption accusing legislators of siding with "special interests." (Where "special interests" apparently means "every other business with a physical presence in South Carolina that doesn't get a sales tax exemption.") Amazon won this game of chicken, however. Faced with massive voter backlash, the state legislature flinched and voted 90-14 for a new deal that would exempt Amazon from collecting South Carolina sales tax until January 2016. The bill became law earlier this week. http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/CPT-AMAZON-SCAROLINA_5255672/CPT-AMAZON-SCAROLINA_5255672/ http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/CPT-AMAZON-SCAROLINA_5... http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2015262994_scamazon09.html http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/201...
minouye 15y ago
For anyone affected by this legislation, I'd encourage them to get involved with the Performance Marketing Association. They seem to be the main group (excluding merchants like Amazon) that is actively lobbying against such legislation. In fact, they recently filed suit against the Illinois Dept. of Revenue: http://performancemarketingassociation.com/pma-vs-state-of-illinois http://performancemarketingassociation.com/pma-vs-state-of-i...
MediaTrustpete 15y ago
The PMA Performance Marketing Association just filed the first law suit to fight the Affiliate Nexus Tax. this is the first action of its kind from the internet marketing industry fighting back.. Performance Marketing Association Sues State of Illinois over Affiliate Nexus Law Lawsuit Aims to Protect 9,000 Illinois Small Businesses; State Will Lose Estimated $22 Million in Income Taxes if Law Takes Effect http://performancemarketingassociation.com/pma-vs-state-of-illinois http://performancemarketingassociation.com/pma-vs-state-of-i... worth while checking out and helping support and spread this info...

100 points by foxhop 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Is anybody keeping track of which states this applies to? I know Illinois was (one of?) the first, and now obviously CT as well. Which states remain?

zaidf 15y ago
North Carolina, I think, is one of them.
- RobbieHodge 15y ago
  NC is one for sure. Lost my account after many years. Considering leaving the state because of it.
sixtofour 15y ago
Colorado
unshift 15y ago
This same thing happened in Colorado a few months back, and I think California has a similar bill on the horizon
jonknee 15y ago
Amazon is (obviously). https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/associates/agreement https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/associates/agreement > In addition, if at any time following your enrollment in the Program you become a resident of Colorado, Illinois, North Carolina, Rhode Island, or Connecticut, you will become ineligible to participate in the Program, and this Operating Agreement will automatically terminate, on the date you establish residency in that state.
davidw 15y ago
!Oregon - there is no sales tax there.
- olefoo 15y ago
  Ssshh; Portland is already overrun with people who are online marketing experts... don't bring more of them.

_delirium 15y ago

A more accurate headline would be: Amazon.com kills affiliate marketing in Connecticut, due to dissatisfaction with new Connecticut law.

jonknee 15y ago
If a state enacts a law that will make a business lose money without changing polices, it's not the company's fault if they change policies. Amazon's pullout was a completely known outcome of the law well before it was put into place.
- _delirium 15y ago
  Sure, companies can do whatever they wish (within the law) in response to any factors they choose to take into account. But I think it's still Amazon making the decision here; from the headline, I had thought that Connecticut banned affiliate programs or something. I'd similarly say that Boeing's move from Seattle to Chicago, partly due to tax policies, was a decision made by Boeing, not by Seattle.
  - jonknee 15y ago
    By that logic, the state can never be to blamed when making decisions that affect businesses. This wasn't an unintended consequence--every time a similar law has passed Amazon has acted identically on the exact day that it begins.
    - _delirium 15y ago
      I'm not saying the state can't be blamed, either, just that the headline is misleading. My comment was not a political one, but one about headlines that editorialize at the expense of clarity. If you want to emphasize the state's culpability, that can still be done with somethting like, "Connecticut tax change causes Amazon to pull affiliate program". I do think Amazon's action was predictable, but it's still Amazon's action. I'm also not quite sure it was mandated by the decision; I suspect Amazon could still turn a profit even by retaining its CT affiliate program, but with the current landscape (% of states that do versus don't have such laws) it was a better business decision to pull out. Amazon is also probably looking at it as a strategic move to put pressure on other states, rather than considering the CT business case in isolation.

hvs 15y ago

Illinois did something similar with what it called the "Mainstreet Fairness Act" in March [1]. Illinois, as you may know, was rated as the worst state in the country for debt last year [2]. These states would rather chase after more revenues (and chase companies out of their states in the process) rather than have to do the hard work of actually cutting spending. [1] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-10/business/ct-biz-0311-amazon-tax-bill-20110310_1_amazon-and-overstock-main-street-fairness-act-sales-tax http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-10/business/ct-bi... [2] http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/44/debt-10_Global-Debt-Crisis_Rank_2.html http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/44/debt-10_Global-Debt-Cris...

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- cheez 15y ago
  Think about the children.
raganwald 15y ago
There are two orthogonal questions to ask: 1. How much should states tax their citizens? and: 2. Given a certain amount of tax to collect, what is/are the best mechanism(s)? You seem to be talking to point number one. Eliminating sales tax or collecting it from fewer transactions would accomplish that, but so would applying the law exactly as CT applies it but lowering the percentage collected on each transaction. For that reason, I find it confusing to look at a situation like this and slide into arguing about cutting spending. If they should tax people less, fine, but that's orthogonal to the question of how they tax people and the consequences of the tax mechanisms they choose to employ.
jwhite 15y ago
The phrase "Mainstreet Fairness Act" sounds like something directly out of Atlas Shrugged.
fleitz 15y ago
Why is cutting spending hard work? You just write a lower number on the budget, voila, less gets spent. I mean the only thing you really have to do to cut spending is for a Governor to refuse to sign the budget, spending gets cut automatically. In my opinion cutting spending is less work.

irons 15y ago

I've heard about Amazon pulling this tactic in NY and other states that forced them to start collecting sales tax, but that is one breathtakingly petulant letter. What exactly is the constitutional issue they're alluding to? (I live in Washington state, where Amazon has always collected sales tax, so personally it seems like a non-issue.)

hvs 15y ago
The issue is collecting sales tax for items bought outside of their state. Interstate commerce is a federal jurisdiction. If they collect sales tax in Washington state, it's because they have an office there.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  In Amazon's case, they have a lot of offices in Washington state, including their headquarters. They have always collected WA sales tax.
- irons 15y ago
  That's not a constitutional argument for Amazon's position. You're obligated to pay sales tax on items purchased out of state, by annual remittance. Almost nobody does it, but if you're ever audited (by your state), they can ding you if you don't. Amazon is plenty big enough to be specifically called out by cash-strapped state governments for, effectively, encouraging people to evade the law.

andrewpi 15y ago

Anyone know the status of Amazon's litigation with New York State? Amazon still charges sales tax to NY addresses.

username98 15y ago
I don't get why Amazon didn't cut off all its New York affiliates yet.

forgetcolor 15y ago

IL also mandated a boycott of Amazon for any state procurement. IOW no state employee can buy goods from Amazon using state purchasing methods (refardless of aource of funds). Of course it's not like any sales taxes were paid by tne state since they're exempt.

jonkelly 15y ago

I'm still kind of mystified as to how these laws keep getting passed. I think there is clearly room for debate about whether or not Amazon customers should pay sales tax in their home jurisdictions. But, there is no reasonable debate about these laws. They have perfectly predictable results: law is passed, Amazon nukes affiliates, state loses income tax from affiliates, gains nothing as a result. I find it incredible that state lawmakers either think that it will be different in their state or that it's worth destroying the incomes of their taxpayers to just make a symbolic gesture. Does anyone have a reasonable justification for the lawmakers' actions or is it really just a mix of idiocy, vindictiveness, and appeasement of local donors?

fierarul 15y ago
Think of it as a signaling game: what happens when all the US states have similar laws. Will Amazon just give up on affiliates?
- gscott 15y ago
  With the widespread adoption of the Google Content network for advertising I am wondering if affiliate links are needed because they can just show up in the Google ad and the advertiser gets paid for clicks. The previous affiliate can still make a page about a product but let Google figure out the links to show.
- nostromo 15y ago
  Remember, there are five states that do not charge sales tax, so they have no incentive to fight Amazon. There are another five states where Amazon already collects sales tax. So, that's 10 states that have no reason to pass similar laws. And of course, affiliates that make a sizable amount of money will probably not move, but will instead simply incorporate in one of those states (one of which happens to be Delaware).
  - jonkelly 15y ago
    Exactly. There are plenty of choices of jurisdiction for the bigger affiliates that matter to Amazon. This is really just a "nuke the mom and pop blogger" effect.

karlkrantz 15y ago

It wasn't just Amazon, but also sites owned by Amazon, including Audible. Amazon and Audible were my two sources of revenue for my site thestartupdaily.com Yesterday both accounts were closed with no advanced notice and my business model is effectively broken. While I support Amazon for taking a stand, I'm angry at Amazon for not giving some sort of warning to affiliates. It also seems like they wasted a good opportunity to get people who are most passionate about the issue to make some noise for them. The could have sent emails to affiliates as the issue was unfolding, and instead of the short and rather unfriendly letter to affiliates saying "your contract has been terminated". They should have used that notice to give people more information and phone numbers and other contact details about who is behind this. Seems to me like big chain stores buying protectionist legislation and selling it to voters as "protecting small business", while in reality they are protecting yesterday's dinosaurs and screwing forward thinking Internet based businesses.

dangrossman 15y ago
You've had years of notice. Amazon did exactly the same thing with Illinois, Colorado, Hawaii, North Carolina... Amazon has publicly said it would do the same thing in Connecticut for months.
- karlkrantz 15y ago
  Of course I knew it was a possibility, but my point is that "saying publicly" in press releases or court rooms is a lot different from having a conversation with your customers or partners. Telling people that the affiliate program will be closed to them in 30 days would have been a lot nicer than telling people that their income stops effective immediately.
  - dangrossman 15y ago
    Then they'd have to collect sales tax from Connecticut customers for 30 days. They'd piss off a lot more people than their affiliates, including their customers for suddenly collecting taxes they didn't used to collect, to their shareholders for creating mass customer confusion just to be nice to affiliates.

bwb 15y ago

Arkansas did too earlier this week.

mikiem 15y ago

Retailers, on-line or otherwise, have to pay sales tax on sales within a state where they have a physical presence. That's the way it is. The problem in this case is that CT wants sales tax on a sale that was referred by an affiliate... Even when the retailer (Amazon) and the customer are both not located in CT. In states that charge sales tax, most (all?) charge "use tax" of the same amount as sales tax, on items shipped to them from an out-of-state retailer that did not charge sales tax. Retailer customers almost never pay it, probably don't know it exists. Sates usually don't go after the tax for consumers, but they do go after businesses for it (at least they do in CA) presumably because the amount of tax is potentially much higher. In other words, technically, you have to pay sales tax when you buy something, and if you don't then you're supposed to pay the equivalent amount in "use tax". In this case, CT is trying to wedge in there and get tax when neither the buyer or the retailer are in CT. It's not a business killer for Amazon to charge and pay the taxes for every state. Many on-line retailers do. There is software and subscription services to keep billing systems up to date with current tax tables. But, who pays sales/use tax on what when a guy in CA buys something from Amazon that was referred by a CT affiliate? What about when someone in a state where Amazon has no physical presence buys from Amazon through a CT affiliate? My brain hurts and I suspect someone's getting screwed.

mtumbrel 15y ago
I think the point is that very few CT residents actually pay the use tax, and the situation they're trying to catch is where the buyer is in CT. If Amazon had a retail presence, it would be collecting that tax and forwarding it to CT, and this law was an attempt to define affiliates as a retail presence. I agree that it's not a "business killer", but lower prices drive sales, and that's why they've fought so hard to collect nothing. Frankly I found the one-sided slant of the article a little nauseating. Couldn't you as easily say that Amazon has been abetting tax evasion for years? Who moved your cheese? Was it the Connecticut legislature or Amazon? Well, yes. Connecticut wants that 6%. Not sometimes. Always. So they passed a law. Given a choice between collecting a 6% tax and hanging out their long-time affiliates partners to dry, Amazon picked the latter. Even though I live in a high-tax state with a similar use tax requirement, I don't think Amazon's position is reasonable. Use tax compliance rates are generally pitiful. Both state and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act allow for this kind of use tax. Local sales tax collection is not optional. The goods in question do not magically teleport into the homes of Connecticut residents. They come over state roads, often carried by state residents in big trucks. If they weren't bought over the internet, they'd be bought at stores where residents would be paying 6% or more.

rwg 15y ago

Some food for thought regarding Amazon and sales tax: Amazon has plans to build and operate a distribution warehouse near Columbia, South Carolina. State and local leaders rolled out the red carpet for Amazon -- a free building site, property tax cuts, employment tax credits, and the repeal of a county law prohibiting Sunday morning sales. But Amazon also wanted a five year exemption on collecting South Carolina sales tax. After all, they would have a physical presence in the state, and there's absolutely no ambiguity about whether or not they'd have to collect sales tax at that point. When the state legislature voted "no" on the sales tax exemption, Amazon immediately stopped construction on the warehouse and took down all of the job listings for that location. There was a huge uproar, with supporters of the exemption accusing legislators of siding with "special interests." (Where "special interests" apparently means "every other business with a physical presence in South Carolina that doesn't get a sales tax exemption.") Amazon won this game of chicken, however. Faced with massive voter backlash, the state legislature flinched and voted 90-14 for a new deal that would exempt Amazon from collecting South Carolina sales tax until January 2016. The bill became law earlier this week. http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/CPT-AMAZON-SCAROLINA_5255672/CPT-AMAZON-SCAROLINA_5255672/ http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/CPT-AMAZON-SCAROLINA_5... http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2015262994_scamazon09.html http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/201...

minouye 15y ago

For anyone affected by this legislation, I'd encourage them to get involved with the Performance Marketing Association. They seem to be the main group (excluding merchants like Amazon) that is actively lobbying against such legislation. In fact, they recently filed suit against the Illinois Dept. of Revenue: http://performancemarketingassociation.com/pma-vs-state-of-illinois http://performancemarketingassociation.com/pma-vs-state-of-i...

MediaTrustpete 15y ago

The PMA Performance Marketing Association just filed the first law suit to fight the Affiliate Nexus Tax. this is the first action of its kind from the internet marketing industry fighting back.. Performance Marketing Association Sues State of Illinois over Affiliate Nexus Law Lawsuit Aims to Protect 9,000 Illinois Small Businesses; State Will Lose Estimated $22 Million in Income Taxes if Law Takes Effect http://performancemarketingassociation.com/pma-vs-state-of-illinois http://performancemarketingassociation.com/pma-vs-state-of-i... worth while checking out and helping support and spread this info...