4 ms·
I understand that this has an "adverse" affect on those who use these programs, but any taxes have an adverse affect on any commerce. Is there a reason why othe
by asolove 17y ago
I understand that this has an "adverse" affect on those who use these programs, but any taxes have an adverse affect on any commerce. Is there a reason why other transactions should be taxed and these shouldn't?
- ghshephard 17y agoTraditionally, transactions that do not take place _within_ a particular state are not taxed by that state's sales taxes. (Edit: That does not mean the recipient shouldn't pay Use Taxes - In California, our (Edit: Out of state) Online Vendors don't charge us sales tax, but we still owe Tax to the State of California as a business - see http://www.ftb.ca.gov/current/usetax.shtml http://www.ftb.ca.gov/current/usetax.shtml) North Carolina is trying to tax a transaction taking place on the "internet." Amazon's response is not unexpected. The Net-effect of the North Carolina tax legislation may be to drive a lot of economic activity out of their state, including the referral income which was previously subject to North Carolina state income taxes.
- amalcon 17y agoWell, there's actually a legitimate dormant commerce clause argument to be made here. The commerce clause is the most abused part of the U.S. Constitution, but this is precisely the sort of thing it is supposed to apply to.
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoI'd really love to hear that argument.
- ubernostrum 17y agoI imagine a court will be hearing it quite soon if this legislation takes effect. And if a case related to this goes all the way up the federal court system, it could get really interesting; Scalia and Thomas don't buy the idea of the dormant commerce clause.
- amalcon 17y agoIANAL, but this is how it was explained to me: -The Constitution divides up powers, granting some to the federal government, and reserving others for the states or citizens. -The ability to regulate (that is, tax) interstate commerce is one granted to the federal government. -Therefore, the power to regulate interstate commerce is not the domain of the states. Now, the "dormant power" argument (the first part) is somewhat debatable, but it is based on one of the very early SCOTUS decisions. It's also what prevents different states from having incompatible vehicle compliance measures, which is definitely a good thing. This same reasoning has applied to mail-order catalogs (not to mention driving to other states for purchases) for years. States generally try to get around this by instituting a "use tax", but these are pretty well unenforceable in the general case. In any case, I think we can agree that this is an entirely different matter than the typical uses of the commerce clause, to basically do whatever crazy thing Congress wants to do.
- fatdog789 17y agoThe "dormant commerce clause" power is actually the last bit: B/C the power to regulate interstate commerce is given to Congress, it is not within the domain of the states to interfere with (i.e., by regulating) interstate commerce. The dormant commerce clause power doesn't prevent states from having incompatible vehicle compliance measures...the commerce clause does b/c Congress has passed legislation on point. States are allowed to have incompatible vehicle standards (Cali and NY/NJ can set their own emissions and fuel efficiency standards) b/c the legislation allows them to seek waiver. If the dormant commerce clause applied, they wouldn't be able to do this b/c there wouldn't be any waivers available b/c Congress was silent on the issue. IAALBYANPM.