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

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.