Same. The 5 miles it would take me to drive to Best Buy and back, it would still cost less at Amazon /w tax. But it's still lame. Tax in Suffolk is 8.625%! We have the most expensive gas according to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/..._ge/oil_prices,

I read else where (forgot where) that there's 300-some odd different tax rates throughtout NY state.

At least you aren't Chicago: they just raised it to 10.25% and are the highest in the nation.


And I'm happily content with my 5% ;)

Items Shipped to New York State
Effective June 1, 2008, Amazon.com LLC will begin collecting sales tax on items shipped to destinations within the State of New York as New York has enacted a new law requiring out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax based on advertising. Amazon has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this provision. However, as required by the law, we must still begin collecting New York sales tax beginning on that date.

Please note that if you place an order prior to June 1, 2008, your Order Total may not include an estimate of New York sales taxes, but those taxes may still be charged if your order is readied for shipment on or after that date.

I wonder if they will charge tax on items shipped to NY that are paid for by a GC. No tax charged when purchasing a GC. Maybe someone who is charged tax now can test? (or knows from past experience).

No sales tax is charged when purchasing gift certificates; however, purchases paid for with gift certificates may be subject to tax.

I was in Chicago last weekend and nearly shit myself when I saw that on my receipt.

Here's a question. Since the crux of Amazon's argument is that they have no physical presence in NYS, if Amazon were to ignore this law, what exactly could NYS do to Amazon? Or put more simply, why is Amazon complying?

I guess sue NYS. I don't think they can stop the packages. A lawsuit is probably the only thing. Amazon filed a lawsuit again Amazon against the law. Maybe that's all they can do.

I think he is asking what can New York State do to Amazon if they simply refuse to withhold sales tax.

yeah. I meant to say the reverse of what I said. NYS would sue Amazon. not Amazon sue NYS.

If I were the NY Attorney General, I'd bring suit in a NY State court. The basis of the personal jurisdiction would be the packages shipped to NY consumers. Amazon would appear, but if it didn't, I'd obtain a default judgment in the NY State court. If Amazon had no assets in NY, I'd take that judgment to a Washington State court for satisfaction pursuant to Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution. Alternatively, I could bring the suit in federal court, but why bother.

Yep, well try getting someone to pay a commuter tax like NYC does. The roads all pretty much suck in Washington DC but few of us residents drive to work compared to the massive influx of commuters from Maryland and Virginia. But since we're not even genuinely represented in the House/Senate, what do you think the likelihood of forcing a commuter tax on the folks who rip up the city's roads passing is going to be? Gripe about taxes on Amazon stuff - how about DC residents taxation without representation! :brickwl2:

Amazon may win this in court. I used to work in catalog sales & by law we had to tax those who lived within states in which we had a physical presence. No contest there. The thing with NY & other states trying to get sales tax from Amazon (and other e-tailers) is that if Amazon does not have a presence in said states then those states are trying to enforce laws over a business entity existing in another state. They are essentially saying that they can govern what another state has the right to govern. They are essentially trying to enforce NY laws in Washington state, for example. This is why the driver's licenses for illegals is hotly contested & challenged by states which are outside of NY jurisdiction. The reason is that other states must recognize licenses from other states, so if an illegal goes to NY to get a license & then drives in a state in which illegals are not allowed to have licenses, NY would then be forcing other states to honor THEIR laws regarding license issuance to illegals.

I think Amazon will win this because you can't have somebody from one state telling somebody in another state what to do.

ETA : NY cannot stop packages from being delivered. That would be an act against the Federal government which outranks state government in regards to the mail. USPS is not exactly a federal entity, but it is GOVERNED by a federal entity, thus NY would be breaking federal law by denying people their mail.

fitlissa76, it's funny that you hit upon the driver's license issue. That's actually another example of the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution (Article IV, Section 1) which I mentioned above as being the mechanism by which NY could have a NY ruling enforced in a Washington court.

In any event, absent intervention from Congress, my money's on New York on this one. , but I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

NYC hasn't had a commuter tax for years.

How is this a Full Faith and Credit issue? If anything it's an interstate commerce issue, and it's pretty clear that NYS doesn't have the right to govern that.

Enforcement of the NY court judgment would be, not the legality of the tax per se. See my post above.

It's an interstate commerce issue, but that's not the end of the story. Not all state regulations impacting interstate commerce are automatically void you know. For example, NY state can require 18-wheelers based in Illinois to pay licensing taxes in New York to operate in the state. That's not unconstitutional despite being an interstate commerce issue, and neither is this.

This isn't an attempt by NY to throttle interstate commerce. NY is not in any way discriminating between in state and out of state merchants, nor is it imposing an onerous burden on out of state merchants selling to NY customers. I see no unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce in this taxing scheme.

I don't think NY will win.

NY Government has to start to look within it's bloated self to cost costs, not enact nonsense laws to raise revenue.

I contacted my NY Representative and voiced my displeasure at what Spitzer (at the time) was trying to pass. She wrote me back and said that she and others in the legislature were against it - due to the fact that they believed it was illegal for the state to enact and enforce such a law.

That being said - I wonder if Amazon wins in court, will they refund us NY residents the sales tax $ they collected?

Gotcha.



True, but I don't see how the two situations are remotely comparable. In one case you have a company operating in NYS. In another you have a company sending packages to NYS residents. They are not in any way "operating" in NYS.

That'll be the crux of Amazon's argument, granted. But, consider the application of New York's insurance industry regulations on an insurance company located in Washington State that provides insurance to NY residents but has no offices in NY. I assume you'd agree that the insurer is subject to NY regulation on those policies (this is why some companies exclude coverage to particular states). This is like that situation. Amazon may have no physical presence in NY, but like the insurance company, it is doing business in the state, albeit the purchase itself is done on the internet.

How could they not? Either the money goes to the State or it goes back to the consumer. Amazon has no claim to it.

I don't see how, really. You're entering into a contract with an insurance company, which is what gives NYS the power to regulate that transaction. Amazon is not entering into a written contract with someone in Albany ordering season three of Sex and the City.

That purchase of S-3 of Sex in the City is in fact a contract. Every time you buy anything from a pack of gum to a house, you're entering into a contract. The buyer agrees to pay the purchase price, and the seller agrees to provide the good. That's the essence of a simple purchase contract, whether that contract is written in advance, memorialized after the fact through a sales receipt, or completely verbal.

I don't want to get into a big thing on this - but Credit Cards are a perfect example of the laws in one state superseding the laws in the state of where the person lives.

When South Dakota enacted legislation in the 80's to change the max interest rates caps on credit cards so that they would exceed inflation - Citibank - almost overnight was reborn. Delaware soon followed and that is why today most CC companies are based in those states.

I don't think NY has a leg to stand on, but they are spending tax payer's money - so their resources are limitless in pursuing this case. The Governor is a lame duck of sorts and hasn't taken a stand on anything - so I guess NY is going to take their chances that this pans out - by spending my $.

This in no way undermines anything I've argued. As I said in post 64, Congress is the final word on this. If they want to get involved, as they've done with credit cards, that's certainly their prerogative.