- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 59,365
- Reaction score
- 27,050
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
the first sentence of your link:
Yes, if you actually read the entire article though, SCOTUS has set the guidelines for when a company can't and can be sued. That's the important thing to keep in mind here. Reading articles instead of the parts which satisfy your general ignorance of the issue.
Now, consider that San Francisco is a municipality and not a state.
Irrelevant, the app is doing business within the boundaries of city limits. Not outside. Do you understand how these things work?
We also have to consider the type of business at hand <snip>
Arguments from ignorance aren't my thing. You can consider them all you want. When you have anything that amounts to more than "Oh the humanity!" you are welcome to come back.
So I don't think
We have already established you're not so good at that. See the fact that you think "advertising" refers to setting up a billboard or sitting with a lawn chair holding a sign.
<snip> is as set in concrete as you imply.
I'm not implying anything. A company has to have clear ties to the state. The fact that there are users of the app within the city and what is being trades is city property, allows for it to be sued. I wish you actually knew what you were talking about. In April Columbus sued Lyft:
City sues to halt app-based car service Lyft | The Columbus Dispatch
The city has filed a lawsuit that seeks to bar the app-based car service UberX from operating in Columbus.
In addition to the lawsuit, which was filed in Franklin County Municipal Court yesterday, the city attorney’s office is asking for a temporary restraining order that would prevent UberX from operating until a judge can decide whether to grant a permanent order.
Lyft is located in San Francisco, no physical presence in Columbus.
Lyft is a privately held, San Francisco–based transportation network company whose mobile-phone application facilitates peer-to-peer ridesharing by enabling passengers who need a ride to request one from drivers who have a car.
In January, San Francisco sued MeetMe.
San Francisco sues MeetMe app, saying it enables stalkers to track teens - San Jose Mercury News
The website MeetMe.com is operated by MeetMe Inc., based in New Hope, Penn., and is aimed at enabling users to meet new friends. According to company figures cited by the lawsuit, MeetMe has more than 40 million users, of whom about 25 percent are under 18.
Company chief executive officer Geoff Cook declined to comment on the lawsuit, but issued a statement saying, "We care deeply about the safety of all of MeetMe's users.
MeetMe is based in Pennsylvania, no physical presence in San Francisco.
This is an evolving area of the law. <snip>
Entirely different matter and I wish you actually were honest enough to post what happened. California had already established that Amazon had links to the state through its affiliates even without a physical presence.
Amazon tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The affiliate provision was included to ensure that only sellers with a California nexus are taxed, as required by federal law.[7] "This legislation will close the current loophole in tax law which has allowed out-of-state companies to avoid collecting California sales and use tax," stated Skinner.
In short, California would tax Amazon through its affiliates and force it to collect sales taxes. Do you get that? The fact that Amazon was doing business through affiliates in California was enough for it to fall under jurisdiction of California's tax and regulation laws. Amazon retaliated by threatening to essentially cut links with any affiliates so that it would no longer be under the jurisdiction of the state and wouldn't have to collect taxes:
In 2011, Amazon threatened to terminate roughly 10,000 of its affiliates located in California if legislation pending in the state legislature to deem such affiliates as constituting a nexus that requires the collection of sales tax is passed. California affiliates would no longer receive commissions on referrals to Amazon.
In the end Amazon actually gave in to the states demands and realized that cutting ties with the state wasn't working in its favors because not only would it still have to collect taxes in the state, it would lose affiliates within the state too.
It then negotiated an agreement to remit sales taxes. But until that moment, California couldn't do squat.
This is not only wrong, it's false. The negotiations came as a result of California trying to pass AB153.
Amazon does not charge sales tax for merchandise I buy from its website.
Now you're just lying:
Free ride is over -- Amazon.com collecting California sales tax - Los Angeles Times
Amazon.com, the world's biggest Internet retailer, began collecting sales taxes on purchases made by Golden State shoppers beginning at 12:01 a.m. The tax ranges from 7.25% to 9.75%, depending on where a buyer is located. Chatter on Twitter on Saturday morning showed mixed consumer reaction. "It was a good ride," tweeted Christopher Ferebee, who identified himself as a literary agent and attorney in Southern California.
3 Ways To Still Avoid Sales Tax Online - Forbes
Amazon collects tax in 20 states: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Please stop making things up?
I'm asked to add a "use tax" amount on my annual income tax return while Amazon flips it the bird. As of today, Amazon.com still collects sales taxes in only twenty-one states (Amazon.com Help: About Sales Tax on Items Sold by Amazon.com).
This doesn't come as a result of not having a physical presence but as a result of states not really dealing with e-commerce. However, your physical presence argument is demonstratively false. It's pretty much set in stone that not only can states have jurisdiction over companies doing business within the state even if the business is entirely based online:
In May 2011 Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed legislation that requires online retailers to collect sales tax if they have Connecticut-based affiliates. The legislation aims to raise $9.4 million. Amazon said Connecticut’s legislation violates Quill Corporation v. North Dakota and immediately moved to terminate its affiliate relationships in Connecticut. Amazon accused traditional retailers such as Wal-Mart of being behind Connecticut's new law.[5]
Illinois passed legislation to tax online sales made to consumers located in the state. In March 2011 Gov. Pat Quinn signed the "Main Street Fairness Act," which targets online retailers with Illinois affiliates.
In 2008, New York State passed a law that would force online retailers to collect sales taxes on shipments to state residents.
And before you go on about how those are different because Amazon has associates in the state:
Due to state laws, Amazon does not allow North Carolina residents to participate in the Amazon Affiliates program.[31] Starting February 1st, 2014, Amazon will begin collecting NC State sales tax on orders. [32]
Amazon has NO physical presence of any sort in the last state. It has no affiliates. it still must collect sales taxes.