California Promises No Sales Tax Due To Affiliates To Keep Amazon/Overstock Affiliates Happy

from the someone's-been-watching dept

In the last few weeks we've seen companies like Amazon drop affiliates in a bunch of different states, due to proposals in cash-strapped state legislatures to force the online retailers to collect sales tax even if there are only affiliates in that state. Apparently, California politicians put forth a similar proposal, and following threats from Overstock to drop its local affiliates, Governor Schwarzenegger has promised that no such bill will pass (thanks Eric Goldman). It seems that the willingness for these online retailers to cut off affiliates (and the anger that creates among those affiliates) caught the attention of at least someone with power in California.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Amazon Cuts Off All North Carolina Affiliates Over Questionable Proposed Tax Bill

from the tax-amazon dept

You may remember last year -- when New York passed an ill-considered law that attempted to twist the interpretation of its tax law to make Amazon responsible for collecting sales tax in NY because some affiliates were based there. This is problematic, because it basically defines an affiliate as an employee of the company, when an affiliate is really just an advertiser. In response, Amazon went to court, but another retailer, Overstock, went the more drastic (and press friendly) route, and cut off all NY affiliates. I guess Amazon was kicking itself for not thinking of the same thing, and now that a similar issue is showing up in North Carolina, Amazon has abruptly cut off all affiliates in the state, leading to anger among many of those affiliates. The question is whether they turn that anger against Amazon or the state government for pushing forward with such a law.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Actually, Now IRS Wants Congress To Repeal Tax On Work-Provided Mobile Phone

from the wow,-public-response-worked dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about how the IRS was exploring how to enforce an old law that required people whose mobile phones were paid by their employers to pay taxes on the phone service as a "fringe benefit." That got quite an uproar, and it appears the IRS is now saying that it agrees it's a really stupid idea and hopes that Congress will repeal that old law. Of course, it's not clear why it was even explored late last week as a possibility if the administration is so against the idea.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IRS Wants To Tax Your Work-Provided Mobile Phone As A Fringe Benefit?

from the searching-for-cash-under-the-cushions dept

It appears that the Federal Treasury really is searching for cash under the cushions these days. Its latest idea? Claiming that mobile phones provided by employers are actually a "fringe benefit" that should be taxed. So even if your company pays for your mobile phone, you may owe the IRS taxes on it. The mobile operators are fighting this, but given the state of the economy, it shouldn't be much of a surprise if the IRS moves forward with this.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More Digitial Download Taxes On The Way

from the but-of-course... dept

With the economy in so much trouble, state tax revenues are being hit hard -- so, rather than figuring out ways to spend more wisely (what a concept), they're looking for ways to boost tax revenues, and are hitting up two popular online tax targets: taxes on physical goods purchased online and taxes on digital downloads. Of course, the whole (official) purpose of a sales tax was that it was supposed to be used to pay for the infrastructure that made it possible for you to drive to the store and purchase the product (e.g., the roads...). That's not always the case for online ordering (though, some will point out that local infrastructure plays a part on the delivery side). However, it's difficult to see any justification at all (other than a blatant money grab) for a digital download sales tax. But, state officials don't even seem to be looking for any real justification. They're just saying that they need more tax revenue.

Another point raised, in the article on taxing digital downloads, is that politicians don't seem to be distinguishing between digital goods and online services. The person quoted in the article suggests that's a problem, but I'd argue that the real mistake is in thinking that there actually is a "digital good." These days, pretty much all sales of "digital goods" are nothing more than a service. So if we believe that services shouldn't be taxed, then digital goods shouldn't be taxed either. They're the same thing.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

PRS Threatens Woman For Playing Radio To Her Horses Without Paying A Licensing Fee

from the this-is-called-extortion dept

When I was in the UK recently, I was surprised to hear just how much most folks hate PRS -- the collections society in charge of getting various businesses to pay for playing music. PRS is also the group that has caused music videos to be pulled from YouTube after demanding much more money than was economically feasible. But, where PRS really shines is in threatening tons of small businesses. Over the years, we've had stories on PRS threatening car repair shops, because mechanics in the garage were playing their radios loud enough that customers in the waiting room could hear them. That's a public performance, according to PRS. Then they went after a police station because some cops were listening to radios. Then they went after a children's charity for singing Christmas carols without paying up. The group has even been known to call up small businesses and if they hear music in the background, demand payment, including one case involving a guy working at home with his dog. Apparently, that constitutes a "public performance."

The latest (sent in by a few folks) is that PRS has now threatened a woman who plays classical music to her horses in her stable to keep them calm. She had been turning on the local classical music station, saying that it helped keep the horse calm -- but PRS is demanding £99 if she wants to keep providing such a "public performance." And it's not just a one-off. Apparently a bunch of stables have been receiving such calls.

Obviously, this is not a case of random excessive attempts by PRS to squeeze more money out of people. It's become systematic. The group seems to believe that playing music in almost any situation now constitutes a public performance and requires a licensing fee. You just know they're salivating over the opportunity to go after people playing music in their cars with the windows down.

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Recording Industry Lobbying Group Pushes Congress To Tax Radio Stations More

from the and-even-screws-that-up dept

MusicFIRST, a recording industry lobbying group that already has some controversy surrounding it due to contributions from groups not allowed to be involved in lobbying, is continuing to push forward with its campaign to claim that radio is a kind of piracy and demanding legislation that forces radio stations to pay extra to play music. For most of the history of radio, radio stations have paid songwriters and publishers royalties for playing music on the radio, but they didn't pay the musicians (really: the record labels). In fact, the money often (illegally) went in the other direction, with the labels paying the radio stations to play certain artists to help promote them.

However, these days, with the recording industry unable to adapt to the changing marketplace, they've taken to demanding that others (individuals, ISPs, video games, Apple, webcasters, etc...) simply give them money instead. Their latest target, of course, is radio stations. It started with that silly claim that radio is a form of piracy -- then advanced to a bill, being introduced by a Congressional Rep, John Conyers (whose last campaign was heavily funded by those connected to the labels and this lobbying group), to force radio stations to pay the record labels as well.

MusicFIRST's latest effort was to drag its dog and pony show to Congress, where it paraded a bunch of musicians in front of Congresscritters to whine about how unfair it was that radio stations helped promote their music without paying them. Of course, it looks like MusicFIRST should have talked to the musicians a bit more carefully first. One of the musicians they trotted out, Matt Maher, less than 24 hours before going before Congress, noted on his Twitter account how such royalties could hurt radio stations and worried that it would cause some stations to shut down. Apparently, someone went a bit off the reservation and made exactly the opposite point that MusicFIRST wanted him to make....

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IRS May Be Gearing Up To Send Tax Collectors Into Second Life

from the how-much-is-the-tax-on-a-magic-sword? dept

It wasn't difficult to predict that this day was coming -- especially with both China and Australia already experimenting with charging taxes on virtual goods and transactions in virtual worlds. However, Game Politics points us to the news that the US's "taxpayer advocate" (we have such a thing?) is now suggesting the IRS start taxing transactions in virtual worlds as well. While the initial suggestion is for the IRS to just issue "guidelines" for taxpayers, that's the start down the path to active taxation in those worlds. This could get troublesome fast -- as you could easily see scenarios where kids who thought they were just playing a game suddenly owe significant real world taxes, just because they've been successful in the game and accumulated "valuable" assets. It seems fairly pointless, and potentially troublesome, to do any kind of taxation on virtual transaction until such time as real dollars exchange hands.

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Amazon's Suit Over NY Sales Tax Gets Tossed Out By Judge

from the closer-to-the-beginning-than-the-end dept

A judge in New York has tossed out suits from Amazon and Overstock which sought to overturn a state law there compelling them to collect sales tax on purchases made by New York internet users. The law was put into place last year and and immediately raised some eyebrows, as federal law allows states to collect local tax on internet purchases only if the retailer has a physical presence in that state. What set New York's law apart was that it considered internet retailers' affiliates, companies or even individuals that sell through the sites, to constitute a physical presence, giving the state the right to collect sales tax. It's highly unlikely that this is the end of the story with this law -- the suits will probably continue in another court, and it may become more common for internet retailers to ditch their New York-based affiliates until things get sorted out, or if the law is upheld. That's one problematic outcome of the law that's harmful to the people of New York; another issue is the dangerous precedent this law could set by allowing every locality to tax a wide array of internet purchases made by their residents, creating a morass of taxing jurisdictions for internet retailers to navigate.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

44 Comments | Leave a Comment..

China Sends Tax Collectors Into Online Worlds

from the good-luck-with-that dept

A few years back, we discussed whether or not politicians would eventually try to tax virtual world winnings. After all, if there's an exchange rate to real money with fake virtual money (as there usually is), then wouldn't holding all your money in these virtual dollars be seen as something of a tax dodge? Indeed, Australia took the lead in this two years ago, with plans to tax virtual earnings. Now, it appears that China has signed up as well, and will begin taxing any virtual world earnings at 20%.

This actually follows on a failed attempt to ban earning any money on the trade of virtual currencies. That ban had been announced last year, basically as a way to avoid dealing with the taxation issue. When the Chinese government realized that people were ignoring the rules and still earning and trading money in virtual worlds, it reversed course and has now added the 20% tax. What's unclear, of course, is how they plan on enforcing it. Will China take some of its tens of thousands of Great Firewall employees and send them into World of Warcraft for an audit?

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Latest Bizarre Proposal: Save Democracy By Taxing Energy To Make It Too Expensive To Blog

from the say-what-now? dept

Okay, we see all sorts of crackpot ideas and theories show up from time to time, but it's not often that you get one quite this bizarre published in a publication quite as respectable as the Washington Post. Yet here is the venerable Washington Post with an op-ed from the lawyer, Dusty Horwitt, for a "nonprofit environmental group" in Washington DC complaining that blogging and other types of internet content are somehow a drag on democracy, and the solution is for the government to raise energy taxes such that it would make it too expensive for the riffraff to continue owning computers with internet connections, thereby reducing this flood of information. Yes, I think he's serious. There is, I will admit, a chance that this is pure satire. If so, I'll just tip my hat and admit that I was fooled -- but let's move forward on the assumption this is serious.

There are so many troubling aspects to this op-ed that it's difficult to know where to start. First, he brings up the classic complaint that the internet today is producing "too much information." Apparently, he believes that all this bad information somehow prevents good information from being distributed. Good information, by the way, is apparently information published in traditional newspapers. He uses a troubling interpretation of a few questionable stats to establish this -- assuming that because some people spend less time on various online sites, they're somehow not getting access to the good information that they need. He doesn't seem to consider that websites and the ease of publishing now allows people to get access to more good information that it was difficult to come by in the past.

He then goes on to suggest that true social movements have only happened because of the scarcity of broadcast media options, which somehow forced everyone to hear only a single message. This is, apparently, a good thing -- because obviously the big professional media only reports on the important stuff, whereas everyone else only reports on bad stuff. He honestly makes the claim that the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened today, because all of these other media would have drowned out the issue. It was only because a few newspapers decided that it was important to cover it -- and because people had nowhere else to get distracted -- that people actually made civil rights an issue. Today, I guess, we'd all just go back to watching hamsters hit each other on YouTube.

So, the problem, as he has described it is that all these damn people are talking to each other online, rather than listening to what the big important "good" media has to tell us. He says that the answer isn't necessarily to tax the technology of production -- though he considers this -- but to tax energy. He recognizes that it takes energy to use a computer and connect to the internet, so if it's much more expensive, he believes that plenty of folks would give up talking, and go back to being passive consumers of what the big professional media says is important today. As a side benefit (no, seriously), he points out that this increasing cost of energy would probably make it too expensive to offshore jobs. These would be the same jobs that have helped create new jobs and grow the economy (he leaves that part out). It's a wonder his proposal hasn't already been turned into legislation. Who wouldn't support a policy of higher energy costs to shut up the riff raff and make Americans have to pay more for just about everything?

43 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NewEgg Tells NY Tax Collectors To Take A Hike

from the take-that dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about how NY state had passed a highly questionable law designed to force e-commerce retailers to collect sales tax in the state. As you hopefully know, retailers are only supposed to collect sales tax in states where they have a physical presence. The reasoning for this is pretty straightforward. The taxes are designed to help provide core infrastructure services for those retailers (roads, water, etc.). Without a physical presence in the state, the retailers aren't making use of those services, so it doesn't seem right to tax them for it. The NY state law was sneaky in that it changed the definition needed to establish a "physical presence" to include anyone who acted as an affiliate of the retailer. Most e-commerce sites have affiliate programs that allow others to get a kickback on sales for driving those sales. Affiliates are effectively advertisers, driving traffic to an e-commerce site. It's quite a stretch to suggest they represent a physical presence for the company. But, NY politicians did it because they wanted to get more cash out of Amazon.

Different online retailers have reacted in different ways. Both Amazon and Overstock sued over the law -- and Overstock even banned NY affiliates while this law is in place. Online tech retailer NewEgg started collecting the tax, but has changed its mind. It sent a letter to customers saying that it's decided not to collect the tax. There isn't much more of an explanation, but it sounds like it's asking New York to sue it if it wants to get the tax at all:

As a result of recent changes in New York State tax law requiring certain out-of-state retailers to collect and remit sales taxes to the State of New York, we began collecting applicable sales tax for all orders shipped to New York addresses starting June 1, 2008.

After careful review and consideration, we are pleased to inform you that we have stopped collecting New York sales tax, effective August 21, 2008. This decision was driven by your direct and candid feedback and our continued commitment to you as our valued customers.

Your move, New York.

62 Comments | Leave a Comment..

A Detailed Explanation Of How The BSA Misleads With Piracy Stats

from the and-on-and-on-it-goes dept

A couple months ago, when the Business Software Alliance (BSA) released its latest stats on "piracy," it's VP of anti-piracy, Neil MacBride, gave me a call to discuss my earlier complaints about the organizations methodology. Needless to say, we did not see eye-to-eye, and the phone call did little to resolve our differences. I'm still hopeful that eventually the BSA will recognize that it's doing more damage to its own position by publishing obviously bogus numbers. So, with the organization releasing another bogus stat today, it's time to explain why it's wrong and misleading.

Today's report is an attempt to get the government involved in protecting BSA member companies' business model, by claiming that the US is losing out on $1.7 billion in tax revenue due to "pirated" software. And, of course, it comes with a lovely quote from Mr. MacBride: "The most tragic aspect is that the lost revenues to tech companies and local governments could be supporting thousands of good jobs and much-needed social services in our communities." And the BSA is even so kind as to quantify what that (not really) lost tax revenue could do: "For example, the lost tax revenues to state and local governments -- an estimated $1.7 billion -- would have been enough to build 100 middle schools or 10,831 affordable housing units; hire 24,395 experienced police officers; or purchase 6,335 propane-powered transit buses to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

Except that this is almost entirely incorrect and it's relatively easy to show why:

1. The report counts every unauthorized piece of software as a lost sale. You have to dig through separate PDFs to find this info, but when you finally get to the methodology it states:

   The software losses are based on the piracy rate and equal the value of software installed not paid for.

   That's a huge, and obviously incorrect assumption. Many of the folks using the software likely would not have paid for it otherwise, or would have used cheaper or open source options instead.
2. The report makes no effort to count the positive impact of unauthorized use of software in leading to future software sales. This is something that even Microsoft has admitted has helped the company grow over time. But according to the BSA's report, this doesn't matter.
3. The report also proudly notes: "Software piracy also has ripple effects in local communities." However, "ripple effects" are easily disproved as double or triple counting the same dollar. Using ripple effects like that inflates the final number by two or three times. In the link here, Tim Lee explains this (in reference to an MPAA study done by IPI, but it applies here to the BSA study done by IDC as well):

   If a foreigner gives me $1, and I turn around and buy an apple from you for a dollar, and then you turn around and buy an orange from another friend for a dollar, we haven't thereby increased our national wealth by $3. At the beginning of the sequence, we have an apple and an orange. At the end, we have an apple, an orange, and a dollar. Difference: one dollar. No matter how many times that dollar changes hands, there's still only one dollar that wasn't there before.
   
   Yet in IPI-land, when a movie studio makes $10 selling a DVD to a Canadian, and then gives $7 to the company that manufactured the DVD and $2 to the guy who shipped it to Canada, society has benefited by $10+$7+$2=$19. Yet some simple math shows that this is nonsense: the studio is $1 richer, the trucker is $2, and the manufacturer is $7. Shockingly enough, that adds up to $10. What each participant cares about is his profits, not his revenues.

   This is a huge fallacy that the BSA an IDC refuse to acknowledge. When I discussed it with them in May, they insisted that they only wanted to talk about piracy rates, not the loss number. I wonder why...
4. Next, if they're going to count ripple effects in one direction, it's only fair to also count them in the other direction. That is, they complain that:

   Lost revenue to technology companies also puts a strain on their ability to invest in new jobs and new technologies. For example, the $11.4 billion in piracy losses to software vendors and service providers in the eight states would have been enough to fund more than 54,000 tech industry jobs.

   But what they don't acknowledge is the ripple effects in the other direction. That is, if (going by their assumption, remember) every company that uses an unauthorized copy of software had to pay for it, that would represent $11.4 billion in money that all of those other companies could not use to fund jobs at those companies. What about all of those jobs?
5. The BSA/IDC stat on lost tax revenue also miscounts on the point above, since it includes the lost income tax revenue from those 54,000 lost jobs, but does not count the equivalent income tax revenue from those other jobs. In fact, in the fine print, the report notes:

   "Employment losses are calculated from revenue losses, and only apply to employment in the IT industry, not IT professionals in end-user organizations. Tax revenue losses are calculated from revenue losses (VAT and corporate income tax) and employment losses (income and social taxes)."

   In other words, the income tax losses only count one side of the equation and totally ignore the lost income tax revenue from the lost jobs on the other side of the equation. Oops.
6. It seems likely that the eventual tax benefits of the unauthorized use of software is most likely to greatly outweigh the lost tax revenue elsewhere. That's because the use of software within industries is a productivity tool that increases overall productivity and output, which would increase taxes beyond just the income taxes of the employees. The study, of course, ignores this point.
7. Worst of all, the report seems to assume that direct software sales are the only business model for the software industry, ignoring plenty of evidence from companies that have adopted business models that embrace free software -- generating billions of dollars for the economy (and in taxes). And that's what this really comes down to. It's a business model issue. If others started adopting these business models as well, there wouldn't be any "losses" at all.

Oh, and just for good measure, the report also falsely claims that: "What many don't realize or don't think about is that when you purchase software, you are actually purchasing a license to use it, not the actual software." That's not exactly true and goes directly against a recent court ruling that said the opposite and goes through a detailed explanation for why a piece of sold software is a sale with restrictions, rather than a license, using previous court precedents.

Most of these points have been made to the BSA and IDC in the past, and both organizations chose not to address them. The fact that they're continuing to use these obviously false numbers and methodology to now push for the government to prop up an obsolete business model should be seen as troubling not just for the dishonesty of it, but for the negative impact it will have on the software industry and our economy as a whole.

144 Comments | Leave a Comment..

California Can't Resist: Wants To Tax iTunes Downloads Again

from the keep-on-trying dept

There are some states that already include a sales tax on internet downloads for things like iTunes purchases (even if the rationale for the tax doesn't seem to exist beyond "the state needs money"). Every so often various other state politicians start itching to add an iTunes download tax. The latest is California. Some state politicians made a bunch of news back in April for proposing just such a plan, but the resulting publicity and anger from California residents made sure that proposal was quickly shot down. So what did the main sponsor of that proposal do? He waited less than two months and proposed a nearly identical tax on digital downloads. Of course, all this will really do is push more people to look at alternatives, legal or not, because of the greater expense associated with digital downloads (a product that should get cheaper over time, rather than more expensive).

50 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Recording Industry Calls Radio 'A Kind Of Piracy'

from the and-mocks-broadcasters dept

It would appear that the recording industry now likes to call any sort of business model it doesn't like "piracy." At least that's the only explanation I can come up with in its latest battle, where it has referred to traditional radio as "a form of piracy." It's almost too bizarre to be true, and that's before we even explain how this involves a (literal) can of herring.

It's difficult to pick a side to cheer for in a dispute between the RIAA and the NAB -- as we're talking about two organizations with a history of saying the most outrageously incorrect things in misguided attempts to "protect" the industries they represent (which almost always ends up backfiring and hurting the industry). However, in the latest battle between the two, it seems pretty clear that it's the RIAA that's being more ridiculous. This is the latest skirmish in the battle that the RIAA started last year, in trying to get radio stations to pay royalties to musicians. If you're not familiar with the details, as it stands now, radio stations have to pay royalties only to songwriters and publishers for the music they play. The musicians themselves don't get royalties, with the (very reasonable) explanation that having songs on the radio acts as a strong promotion for the musicians. This explanation is supported by the history of radio, in which "payola" has almost always played a large role. The record labels have always paid the radio stations to play their bands -- a rather overt admission that radio helps promote new artists.

But with the recording industry confused and struggling to adopt new business models, it wants to force radio stations to pay it, rather than the other way around. What's funny is that, normally, it's the party that has more leverage that gets to demand payment. Yet, here we have a case where it's the weakest party demanding payment because it's so weak. Despite all those years of payola as proof that radio is a promotional vehicle, the RIAA actually tried to put out a totally bogus study claiming that radio play decreased the demand for recorded music. Apparently, that wasn't convincing enough, so now it's claiming that radio is actually a "form of piracy."

To make this even more ridiculous, this group called musicFirst, representing the recording industry, sent the NAB a can of herring (yes, an actual can of herring), a dictionary and some free songs in an attempt to mock the group. The herring was supposed to suggest that the radio stations' argument is a "red herring" (very clever, guys). The dictionary was so that the NAB could supposedly understand the difference between "fees" and "taxes" -- since the NAB refers to the move to get radio stations to pay musicians as a "tax," while the RIAA would prefer to think of it as a "fee." As for the digital songs, they were all mocking titles: "Take the Money and Run" by the Steve Miller Band; "Pay me My Money Down" by Bruce Springsteen; "Back In the U.S.S.R" by Paul McCartney and "A Change Would Do You Good" by Sheryl Crow.

Of course, the recording industry is wrong on just about all of this. The idea that radio is a form of piracy is simply laughable. We've already pointed to the industry's own proof (payola) that radio helps promote artists. As for the definitional difference between fees and taxes, fees are agreed upon between two parties. A tax is a fee required by the government. Since the recording industry is asking the government to set this new rule, it would seem that the NAB is correct again that this would represent a tax, rather than a fee.

63 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Overstock Sues New York Over Questionable Tax Collecting Law

from the and-here's-another-one dept

Back in April, New York state signed into law a very questionable bill that effectively made any affiliates of your service (i.e., anyone advertising your services) considered as representing a "local presence" for your company for tax purposes. The law had no reason for existing other than to try to squeeze extra tax money out of online retailers. Amazon quickly sued over the law and Overstock has now followed suit, filing a lawsuit against the tax law. Overstock, of course, has taken its reaction even further, banning all New York affiliates as long as this law is in place. The effective result of the law, then, is that it actually ends up harming residents of the state while not doing very much to actually increase tax revenue. It seems quite likely that this law will get tossed out, as it seems to go entirely against earlier rulings on what constitutes a physical presence in the state.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Chicago Wants To Double-Collect Taxes On Event Ticket Sales

from the pay-more-taxes dept

eBay subsidiary StubHub seems like a pretty straightforward concept: it's a marketplace for event ticket resales. It's a huge market, and it makes sense to have a platform for people to resell tickets they've legally bought. However, StubHub seems to keep getting attacked and finding itself in court. First there was Ticketmaster, which complained that StubHub was violating Ticketmaster's "exclusive" rights to selling tickets to certain venues. Then there was the New England Patriots who demanded the names of whoever sold tickets through StubHub in order to punish the ticketholders. Now, the city of Chicago is suing eBay and StubHub, claiming that it needs to collect a special city "amusement tax" on each ticket sold. This is a pure money grab. The original ticket buyer already paid that tax -- and even if you accept the idea that resales should also be taxed (which is pretty questionable), then it seems like something that the actual seller should be responsible for, rather than StubHub/eBay itself. But, don't tell that to Chicago politicians who see this as an easy way to hit up a big company for millions of dollars. If this sounds similar to the attempts to suddenly get Amazon to pay up in other states, that's because it is. Seems like local governments are looking for any way to squeeze companies for extra tax dollars, no matter how little sense it actually makes.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Now Texas Is Wondering Why Amazon Doesn't Pay State Taxes

from the chain-reaction dept

Following New York's decision to change its laws to force Amazon.com to collect sales tax for New York-related transactions, other states are apparently going back and reevaluating Amazon and taxes. Texas, for example, has been alerted to the fact that Amazon probably should be paying sales tax in the state. This is different than the situation in New York. The rule has always been that, if the company has a "physical presence" in the state, it is required to collect and pay sales tax. The question in New York was what counted as a physical presence. Amazon doesn't have offices or a distribution center in New York, but New York was trying to claim that all its Amazon affiliates in New York represent a physical presence. In Texas, however, Amazon actually does have a physical presence in the form of a distribution center. It's just that the state of Texas didn't recognize that until someone from a Dallas newspaper pointed it out. So even if Amazon is successful in fighting the law in New York, it looks like the renewed interest in forcing online retailers to collect and pay sales tax is catching up to Amazon in other ways.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

New York Tries To Rope Amazon Into Playing Tax Collector

from the bit-of-a-stretch dept

The New York Times reports that the state of New York is demanding that Amazon and other e-tailers begin collecting sales taxes from customers in the state by June 1 or face audits and bills for unpaid taxes. Under federal law, a state can only require a business to collect sales taxes for it if the business has a physical presence in that state. So Amazon collects sales taxes in Washington state, where it has its headquarters, but not in most other states, including New York. But New York has hit upon a novel legal theory: Amazon might not have a physical presence in New York, but many of Amazon's affiliates do, and New York argues that those affiliates constitute a "physical presence" sufficient to require Amazon to collect taxes for the state. It's a novel theory, and one that Amazon will almost certainly challenge in court. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Amazon's affiliates are essentially selling Amazon advertising space on their websites. They're not employees of Amazon any more than I become an employee of any site that purchases advertising space on my blog. If New York's interpretation is accepted by the courts, it would spawn endless litigation about which types of relationships establish a "physical presence." There's also a good chance Amazon would just cut off New York residents from participating in the affiliates program to save itself the headache of potentially having to comply with thousands of different taxing jurisdictions. Either way, nothing good is going to come from this.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Recording Industry Testing Out New Theory: It Deserves More Money Because It Lets You Transfer Music

from the the-audacity-of-greed dept

William Patry has a long, but fascinating, discussion on the latest trick being used by the recording industry to try to squeeze more money out of you: telling governments that because it's now willing to let people transfer the music they legally purchased between devices, it deserves extra money for it. To back this up, it's claiming that there's obviously value in being able to transfer music around, otherwise why would people want that ability. The audacity of such a statement from the industry shouldn't be understated. After all, this is the same industry that has, for years, ignored pleas from fans all over the world to get rid of DRM because it would make digital files increase in value. And, now, that the industry has finally been forced to recognize this, it seems to be claiming that all of the value belongs to the industry itself, and it's the government's job to hand over that "value."

The reasoning for this seems to go back to the psychological explanation for why the recording industry keeps getting itself into trouble (and it's similar to the story we had recently about bloggers worrying about a new aggregator). They assume that all of the "value" needs to be captured by them, and not anyone else. In economics, this is effectively an industry telling the government that it needs to be compensated for all of the positive externalities it created -- even if it's better off at an absolute level. Basically, the industry is so overvaluing its own content, that it assumes that any additional value that people get out of music, even if it's through no effort of the recording industry itself, should be entirely converted to more revenue for the industry. As an analogy, it's like your automobile maker demanding an ongoing cut of your salary, since without the automobile, you wouldn't be able to drive to work. Unfortunately, though, unless you're a copyright wonk, you might not even notice that the recording industry is trying to do this. Instead, it presents its case in a logical fashion, focusing on how much "value" it's suddenly creating by "allowing" people to transfer the music they already legally purchased to the device of their choosing.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..