4 ms·

What's even more annoying is amazon damn well does have a large physical presence in CA: a2z: http://a2z.com/ http://a2z.com/ : SF, OC, and San Luis Obispo; A

by earl 15y ago

What's even more annoying is amazon damn well does have a large physical presence in CA: a2z: http://a2z.com/ http://a2z.com/ : SF, OC, and San Luis Obispo; A9: near caltrain, and from their page, "As A9 is a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of Amazon.com, we have the strength that comes from being part of a Fortune 500 company, and the flexibility and energy of a Silicon Valley start-up." I'm ambivalent about the exception to collecting taxes for companies without an instate presence, but this is pure bullshit. Amazon operates multiple companies with hundreds of employees in CA. Just like other companies that take advantage of what CA has to offer, they should be forced to pay the tax man.

dangrossman 15y ago
It's not as if Amazon is arguing that if the subsidiaries sell products in California they wouldn't be subject to sales tax. If you (earl) bought stock in a company in another state, does that give you a physical presence there and make whatever you sell subject to their sales tax? That company you are a partial (or full) owner of already pays sales tax in its state.
- aphexairlines 15y ago
  a2z makes the Amazon Appstore and Android MP3 player. So who gets taxed on those digital purchases?
  - dangrossman 15y ago
    Appstore apps are sold by Amazon Digital Services Inc. They also sell all the downloadable games and such on Amazon.com. I don't know what state that company is in, but that'd be the state that gets taxed.
burgerbrain 15y ago
None of those companies are the companies that are selling you things when you buy stuff off of Amazon.com. If that company actually had a presence in CA (as it does in for example WA) you would pay sales tax in CA (as you do in WA). This is exceedingly cut and dry. I don't understand why people have a hard time groking it. Even the Californian government gets it. That's why they have to go out of their way to drag Amazon Associates into the mess.

by earl 15y ago

dangrossman 15y ago

It's not as if Amazon is arguing that if the subsidiaries sell products in California they wouldn't be subject to sales tax. If you (earl) bought stock in a company in another state, does that give you a physical presence there and make whatever you sell subject to their sales tax? That company you are a partial (or full) owner of already pays sales tax in its state.

aphexairlines 15y ago
a2z makes the Amazon Appstore and Android MP3 player. So who gets taxed on those digital purchases?
- dangrossman 15y ago
  Appstore apps are sold by Amazon Digital Services Inc. They also sell all the downloadable games and such on Amazon.com. I don't know what state that company is in, but that'd be the state that gets taxed.

burgerbrain 15y ago

None of those companies are the companies that are selling you things when you buy stuff off of Amazon.com. If that company actually had a presence in CA (as it does in for example WA) you would pay sales tax in CA (as you do in WA). This is exceedingly cut and dry. I don't understand why people have a hard time groking it. Even the Californian government gets it. That's why they have to go out of their way to drag Amazon Associates into the mess.