Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Ill. high court invalidates ‘Amazon tax’ for sales


< Previous Page


Springfield, Ill. » The Illinois Supreme Court threw out a state law Friday that taxes certain Internet sales, saying the so-called "Amazon tax" violated federal rules against "discriminatory taxes" on digital transactions.

The 6-1 ruling represented the first time a court had invalidated an Internet sales tax law among 18 states that have them. It brought an immediate cry from traditional, store-based retailers for Congress to step into regulating taxes on web sales.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

The court determined that Illinois’ 2011 "Main Street Fairness Act" was superseded by the federal law, which prohibits imposing a tax on "electronic commerce" and obligates collection that’s not required of transactions by other means, such as print or television.

Illinois’ law required out-of-state retailers to collect state taxes on annual sales of more than $10,000 that involve in-state "affiliates," or website operators and bloggers, that draw consumers to the retailers’ sites in exchange for a cut of each sale.

That prompted several high-profile departures from the Prairie State by companies such as CouponCabin.com, which fled rather than lose so-called "click-through-nexus" payments from the Internet retailers.

But Justice Anne Burke, writing for the court’s majority, questioned whether there was any substantial difference between out-of-state businesses reaching Illinois consumers through a click-through-nexus approach or through other approaches that aren’t taxed.

"The click-through link makes it easier for the customer to reach the out-of-state retailer," Burke wrote. "But the link is not different in kind from advertising using promotional codes that appear, for example, in Illinois newspapers or Illinois radio broadcasts."

Justice Lloyd Karmeier dissented, saying the federal law does not apply because the state statute doesn’t "impose any new taxes or increase any existing taxes," but rather changes the definition of who’s obligated to collect them.

But Illinois residents should not expect refunds for the books, neckties, CDs or other items they bought by click during the past two years. Regardless of how an item is purchased, Illinois shoppers must pay 6.25 percent sales tax. If a retailer doesn’t collect it online, taxpayers must do the math and add the owed sales tax when figuring their state income-tax return in the spring.

Illinois’ tax collector, the Department of Revenue, said it’s considering asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Amazon.com did just that in August, when it sought a review of the New York Court of Appeals’ March ruling upholding the law there. The Empire State was among the first to argue that a business with "affiliates" within its borders gives the company a physical presence there — a must if a state hopes to collect taxes from it, according to a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.


story continues below
story continues below

Revenue officials also said they would continue to push the "Marketplace Fairness Act" in Congress to "level the playing field for all businesses." Its sponsor is Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat.

Friday’s Illinois ruling "underscores the need" for Capitol Hill action, said David Vite of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association.

"Brick-and-mortar businesses, which pay property taxes, and income taxes, and are hiring people, are at a significant competitive disadvantage with their remote-selling counterparts," Vite told The Associated Press. "It’s time for the federal government to clarify and finish putting retailers, who are making payroll and putting people to work, on equal footing."

An Amazon spokeswoman did not immediately return a message seeking comment Friday.

Neither proponents nor opponents of the measure could say how much Illinois had collected, but just as the law’s backers trumpet economics, so do those opposing it. George Isaacson is a lawyer from Lewiston, Maine, who represents the plaintiffs in the case, Performance Marketing Association. Its members are the affiliates who post the retailers’ links.

"Our understanding is that the primary economic impact, the effect of the legislation, was in forcing the web affiliates to lay off people," Isaacson said. "That’s less income, less income tax. The law was self-defeating in terms of economic impact."

———

Online:

The case is Performance Marketing Ass’n v. Hamer: http://tinyurl.com/ybdtxtd

———

Contact Political Writer John O’Connor at https://twitter.com/apoconnor



Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.