news-record.com

POLITICS

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Amazon cuts relationships with N.C. affiliates

Friday, June 26, 2009
(Updated Saturday, June 27 - 8:32 pm)

RALEIGH — Online retailer Amazon.com carried through with threats to end its relationship with online businesses based in North Carolina Friday, raising the stakes in a game of chicken over online sales taxes.

The local businesses, which Amazon calls “affiliates,” refer customers to the retailer through ads on their own Web sites. Typically, the ads recommend specific books or music.

North Carolina lawmakers have proposed applying sales taxes to those transactions, something Amazon says would be unconstitutional. The company won’t specify how many affiliates it has in the state.

That proposal — which fiscal analysts estimate could raise about $13 million — is wrapped up in negotiations between the House and Senate over the state budget. Lawmakers are trying to bridge what they describe as a $4.5 billion gap based on last year’s budget and tax collection estimates for the coming year.

Those negotiations are due to carry on for at least the next week and probably longer. So despite warnings more than a week ago, Amazon’s move came as a surprise to most.

James Barrett , a Winston-Salem technology consultant, said Friday he was angry with both the General Assembly and Amazon. Lawmakers, he said, shouldn’t consider a tax that in his mind violates the commerce clause of the Constitution.

But, he said, the company is behaving badly as well.

“They’re trying to tick off all their associates and get them to call down to Raleigh,” Barrett said. “I think that is pretty tacky. That’s not the way to use people who are referring business to your business.”

Barrett says he only earns a small amount from the ad on his site, www.bitsofws.com. But others have built small business based in large part on the income they derive from referrals.

“My heart bleeds for them, but we’re not the ones putting them out of business,” said Sen. David Hoyle , a Dallas Democrat and lead tax writer in the Senate. “Amazon is doing this.”

Hoyle said that even if the state did nothing, the North Carolina Department of Revenue had plans to start collecting taxes on this kind of “click through” revenue from Amazon.

A revenue official said the department could not comment on what action the state might take with regard to a specific taxpayer.

The fight regarding affiliates has to do with a larger struggle over collecting sales taxes from online merchants. In theory, if a merchant does not collect sales tax on a purchase, the individual is supposed to remit a payment with their income taxes. That rarely happens.

Hoyle and others argue that puts merchants that pay real estate, sales and other taxes based on their physical presence in North Carolina at a disadvantage. Essentially, Amazon is giving North Carolina customers a 6.75 percent break on the price on all items.

North Carolina is taking part in a larger effort known as “streamlining” that is aimed at helping states collect those taxes that they’re missing. The idea is to create standard sales tax rates that national merchants can easily collect and send to states.

“It’s not a question of capability,” said Patty Smith , a spokeswoman for Seattle-based Amazon. “We do not feel we should have to comply with unconstitutional legislation.”

She said Amazon supports the streamlining effort and does pay sales taxes in states where the company has a physical presence, such as Washington. But she argues that earlier lawsuits over mail order catalogues established that if a retailer does not have a physical presence in the state that business does not have to collect sales taxes.

But New York has challenged that idea with a law similar to the one being considered in North Carolina. Smith said that the company has collected New York sales tax while lawsuits over that law work their way through the courts.

In North Carolina’s case, she said, the company was cutting off ties with affiliates to avoid being caught off guard.

“We do appreciate all our associates have done for us over the years,” Smith said. “It’s unfortunate that the state legislature has drafted a bill that we find unconstitutional. We feel we have little choice.”

 

Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker@news-record.com

 

Accompanying Photos

File photo (Associated Press)

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

Illiterati

June 26, 2009 - 9:50 am EDT

Yep, got that email this morning. Not surprised, and don't blame Amazon a bit. The state's looking for ways to establish a nexus in order to eventually collect tax on all Amazon purchases (and ultimately ALL online purchases). Now the state gets nothing from the largest online retailer even if they do pass the bill. I feel sorry for folks who rely solely on Amazon referrals and other affiliate schemes to earn money online, but maybe this will be a wake-up call both to diversify their revenue streams and to rely less on another business' sales for the health of their own.

ginnydaley

June 26, 2009 - 10:07 am EDT

I don't understand how this is unconsitutional? Don't other states do this? Anyway, Amazon is free to write their own policies and as long as they don't not let North Carolinians sell in their marketplace, I won't be buying through Amazon.

darkmoon

June 26, 2009 - 10:47 am EDT

IANAL: Basically, the way it's thought is that normally a retailer has a physical presence in the state and thus has to pay sales tax. The state currently is claiming that "affiliates" constitute as a physical presence, even though they're no different than independent resellers (or marketers if you will). So Amazon basically says, well, we don't have an office there or warehouse or anything and you're trying to hit us with sales tax for independent contracts so we're cutting out our independent contracts. The people that get hurt in the process really are the businesses that were referring business to Amazon since that's their income that got cut out, not Amazon's. They (state legislation) were trying to chase the deep pockets and failed miserably.

But in essence, they're taxing a larger entity due to their independent contracts which is where Amazon calls unconstitutional.

mohair.sam

June 26, 2009 - 11:02 am EDT

Darkmoon is right. Other states collect taxes on companies which have a physical location in their state. Currently, NC collects taxes on self-reported Internet or mail-order purchases (on the D-400). The problem with heading in this direction is that it will prompt all states to do this. If you are an Internet retailer, do you want to spend a chunk of money employing people to figure out how much sales tax to collect and pay to each of the 50 states? It will add considerably to the cost of doing online business, and that will hurt everyone. It's a terrible idea, but then, that hasn't stopped NC government from other acts of craven, short-sighted stupidity.

darkmoon

June 26, 2009 - 11:17 am EDT

Oh. And no, other states don't do this. Maryland and Tennessee have declared it unconstitutional and didn't pass the law. There are a couple other states that also followed in the footsteps of Maryland and them. NY passed it. So actually NC is the second in line for this.

clay

June 26, 2009 - 12:02 pm EDT

That's what we get with uncontested one-party rule in NC. Unfortunately the same corrupt, incompetent politicians will get re-elected by the simpletons of this state again and again.

fatboyfanuci

June 26, 2009 - 12:06 pm EDT

This state is a commode anyway and it and those in power deserve to be flushed.

WilliamTeach

June 26, 2009 - 12:33 pm EDT

Interesting that the News-Record highlights the one person who seems to be more upset with Amazon then with the people who actually caused this problem, ie, the State legislature.

Perhaps if the News-Record perused around the NC blogosphere a bit more, they would find that most understand that Amazon doesn't want to deal with the taxation issue, and we blame the legislature. But, I suppose they have an agenda to push, raising taxes good, not taxing consumers bad.

JeepRover

June 26, 2009 - 1:01 pm EDT

I didn't get that at all from the story. What I got was that our Legislature was effectively running business-small businesses, the backbone of our economy-out of the state by ticking off a major online retailor with a "potentially unconstitutional" law. As for obtaining quotes from the legislature, I'm sure they are shocked that this has happened and are reviewing the issue. That's what they always say. I could write the quote myself so why even bother to ask.

Mark Binker

June 26, 2009 - 4:33 pm EDT

William: You'll note that the person quoted in this story says he takes issue with both the General Assembly and the company. Those thoughts will be better fleshed out, I think, when I'm able to write through the story for tomorrow's paper.

It may be worth noting that the General Assembly could not pass the tax and spending plan that this tax is attached to before Thursday at the earliest. (In reality, it will probably be at least a couple weeks before it gets done.) And there's no certainty that this will be part of that bill, which is in a House-Senate conference committee.

dwimsey

June 26, 2009 - 3:45 pm EDT

QUOTE: A spokesman for Seattle-based Amazon.com had not returned phone calls as of 11:30 a.m. Eastern time.

Do you think next time you could let them get to the office before saying they couldn't respond? 11:30am here is 8:30am there, not exactly giving them much time to say anything before just posting a story.

Real journalism is hard I guess, gotta follow the fad and all that.

Mark Binker

June 26, 2009 - 4:29 pm EDT

dwimsey: We now have a quote from Amazon in the story, one of several updates we have made throughout today. And tomorrow, our story in the newspaper and online will be more detailed than what is online right now.

You are correct about the time difference. However, it is standard journalistic practice to note that we have tried to reach a party central to a story, particularly one readers might want to hear from. More than anything else, it lets readers know that there is a question that we haven't answered yet and are working on it.

And no, we're not going to hold off on posting the online version of a story simply because someone is not available to comment or declines to. In this case, we had copies of Amazon's e-mail sent from several different sources.

One other note: Amazon certainly didn't have any qualms about sending notice to its affiliates in the middle of the night and/or early in the morning.

darkmoon

June 26, 2009 - 4:32 pm EDT

4:17AM. ;)

dwimsey

June 27, 2009 - 5:35 pm EDT

I understand why you didn't have a quote and wanted to run the story, by using the standard 'no comment at this time' statement in your story however you have given the appearance that Amazon was ignoring you, which may or may not be true, however its not really reasonable to expect a response that early in the morning for something that isn't exactly life threatening. Its customary to note that the contact was unlikely to respond before you 'went to press' due to the timing involved, not just say they didn't respond. Its just bad form. Its a pet peeve of mine, online journalism isn't the same as traditional journalism and needs to be very clear, especially since you can do things like update a story at any point in time. Makes for a weird conversation when two people are talking about the same article and they have versions of the story that sound drastically different since one of them read an updated version of the article.

On that note however, don't confuse me, I think this is simply proof that Amazon is evil.

Mark Binker

June 27, 2009 - 5:57 pm EDT

Dwimsey - I would never try to confuse you. You seem to do that for yourself.

If you don't want to read online and evolving updates of stories, there's a really simple way to get around that. Subscribe to the paper and wait for us to throw it in the driveway each morning.

histrion

June 26, 2009 - 5:06 pm EDT

I have no problem with NC taxing North Carolina residents for online purchases made through Amazon; doesn't seem fair that Amazon's NC customers should get an automatic discount that brick-and-mortar retailers in NC can't offer. But let me make sure I understand what's being proposed. Amazon's affiliates essentially act as independent sales representatives (or, more accurately, marketers) for the company, correct? If an NC-based independent sales representative for Acme Widget Manufacturer, based in Salt Lake City, UT, made a sale to someone in Wichita, KS, acting purely as the Salt Lake City company's agent, would NC be able to tax that sale? That's basically what's being proposed, isn't it?

philrhodes

June 26, 2009 - 9:08 pm EDT

The NC General Assembly and other so-called "leaders" hate small businesses anyway. This is the same reason they are planning to make LLCs pay corporate franchise fees, and the same reasons they use our tax money to bring in outside businesses (Google, Dell, Apple, etc.) to compete for resources (hence driving up the cost of business) for local NC businesses.

Considering that the foundation of a growing economy is entrepreneurship, this represents a HUGE failure by our state "leadership." To try and prevent debacles like this is exactly why I ran for Lieutenant Governor last year, and is exactly why I'll be back running for elected office again in the future. We have *got* to replace the corrupt crooks who are running our state with people who A. honor fundamental principles like individual freedom and personal responsibility, B. aren't bought and paid for by big corporations and C. understand basic economics.

Phil Rhodes
http://www.philrhodes2008.com

dwimsey

June 27, 2009 - 5:39 pm EDT

So, you want us to let businesses that take money out of the state via online sales to not contribute ANYTHING back, including even the small percentage of income tax ....

And at the same time, you don't want to bring in businesses that bring money into the state from sales elsewhere by providing jobs here, even if doing so means they get some tax breaks for a while?

So all we have is a way for money to leave the state and no way for money to come back in? I realize you're probably trying for a radical approach, but uhm, eventually all the money will be gone and they'll be none left, not even to pay your salary. What exactly do we do then?

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

Triad Weather

  • Current Condition: FAIR
  • Current Temperature: 55°
  • UV Idx: 0
  • Forecast High/Low: H: 65° L: 35°

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search