In April, New York changed its sales tax law to try to make a few large vendors subject to sales tax collection - most notably, Amazon.com.  The new law creates a rebuttable presumption that a vendor is soliciting business and thus required to collect tax if, per an agreement, they compensate New York residents for directly or indirectly referring potential customers. Referrals may be made through a website or other means. The presumption only applies to sellers with over $10,000 of sales to New York customers made via the referrals in the prior four quarters. Sellers may rebut the presumption by showing that the residents did not solicit sales in New York for them. (Bill Summary, p. 10)

Amazon's "Associates Program" causes it to have many associates who may be New York residents. Amazon filed a lawsuit as soon as the law went into effect challenging the new law as unconstitutional. It also started collecting the tax!

Another company that fell under the law change is Overstock.com. Their remedy was to cancel its agreements with its New York affiliates who were helping Overstock.com advertise.

Ease of cross-border business activity has led to what Thomas Friedman describes as a flat world. However, our quagmire of state nexus rules leaves domestic commerce in a non-flat world.

States tend to take broad approaches in finding multistate sellers subject to income or gross receipts tax in the state. The 1959 federal law known as PL 86-272 provides guidance for sellers and states regarding when a state can impose income tax obligations on a seller of tangible personal property. A lot more businesses today, relative to 1959, sell something other than tangible personal property and so have no federal statute to rely on to know when they may owe income tax in a state.

Some states take the approach that an economic connection is enough - that a physical presence in the state is not needed before a seller is subject to state income tax. And, rules can vary from state to state leading to the possibility of double taxation of some income.

The 1959 law needs to be updated. It was intended to be temporary (!), but was never updated. Congress has looked at a few possibilities over the past several years, but nothing has come close to enactment.

In the past year, we have seen both Michigan and Maryland enact new taxes, only to repeal them soon thereafter and before they became effective, due to complaints. That's a lot of work for no effect. What could have been done differently?

On 12/1/07, the day a use tax on specified services was to go into effect, Michigan repealed the law (see prior blog post). More recently, Maryland repealed its expansion of the sales tax to computer services. In November 2007, the legislature added computer services to a measure designed to address a budget shortfall (see Washington Post article of 12/9/07). The tax was to become effective on July 1, 2008. Fierce opposition by the business community led to its repeal in April 2008. The tax would have mostly applied to businesses since they purchase more computer services than do individual consumers.

Back in 1987, we saw Florida expand its sales tax to include specified services, only to repeal that tax 6 months later. In 1990, Massachusetts expanded its sales tax to services, but repealed it before the effective date.