S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

Hatuey · Jul 8, 2014

Ahlevah said:
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.

Ahlevah · Jul 8, 2014

Hatuey said:
Now you're just lying:

Free ride is over -- Amazon.com collecting California sales tax - Los Angeles Times

I already suspected you didn't have a grasp on the facts with your argument that an ordinance regulating the posting of signs on public property applies to an Internet app, but now I'm certain of it. What, specifically, am I lying about? Once again, did you bother reading your own link? It just confirms what I wrote:

After fighting legislative efforts to force it to collect sales taxes, Amazon last year struck a deal with Gov. Jerry Brown. The company promised to open two 1-million-square-foot distribution centers in Northern and Southern California and to start charging sales tax as of Saturday.

Free ride is over -- Amazon.com collecting California sales tax - Los Angeles Times

Then there's this gem:

Hatuey said:
Please stop making things up?

You missed Florida, chief. Your Forbes article is dated March 4th while Amazon didn’t start collecting the tax until May 1st. If you’re going to hurl insults while avoiding stepping on your own crank then at least make sure you get your facts straight first.

Hatuey · Jul 8, 2014

Ahlevah said:
I already suspected you didn't have a grasp on the facts with your argument that an ordinance regulating the posting of signs on public property applies to an Internet app, but now I'm certain of it.

Not really, you interpreted it that way even though you ignored that advertisement upon a property is not dependent on your personal interpretation of the words advertisement, upon and property. They are dependent on whether the advertisement references the property. :shrug:

What, specifically, am I lying about?

The fact that Amazon isn't collecting a sales tax on your orders and you haven't paid sales taxes. :shrug:

Once again, did you bother reading your own link? It just confirms what I wrote: Then there's this gem:

Not really as you failed to actually read any information which contradicts your statements. Amazon has no presence in North Carolina and YET it is still subject to its tax and regulation laws. Again, the state/city must argue that the company is dealing and operating within its borders.

1. MonkeyApp provides a service that simply doesn't function without the particular city's public property. In this case, the city in question is SF. That debunks your claim that the city has no right to sue the app makers. Various cities have already demonstrated that ties to the cities includes creating programs with a physical presence elsewhere but still using the city's infrastructure to creat profit.

2. There have been already a myriad of cases where cities have sued app-makers operating outside of their boundaries AND WON even if the app makers have no physical presence in the state/city. That debunks the claim that the city can't sue MonkeyParking.

3. The city has a legitimate interest in regulating any commerce that directly involves its public property. That also debunks your assertion that the city has no jurisdiction here.

4. The app is partly dependent on placing an advertisement regarding the pay for use of public property. That violates not only California/SF laws on advertisements regarding public property it also violates laws regarding the use of public property. You don't have a right to hold a parking spot hostage until someone pays you for it. You also don't have a right to profit from creating user fees on public property.

5. The app doesn't function/make money if the parking spot is not given to the user. That makes the information irrelevant to the transaction as it facilitates the parties reaching an agreement. It's not what is being traded.

Read more at Amazon sues N.C. over customer data :: WRAL.com

Because Amazon has no offices or warehouses in North Carolina, the company isn't required to collect the customary sales tax on shipments. North Carolina requests voluntary compliance from taxpayers, asking them to include a "consumer use tax" on their individual income tax returns for anything purchased or received through the mail.

Soon after:

Last year, North Carolina passed a law that required out-of-sate retailers to collect sales tax in the state if they have marketing affiliates within the state. Amazon responded by ending its affiliate program in North Carolina and currently doesn't collect sales tax in the state.
Read more at Amazon sues N.C. over customer data :: WRAL.com

Result:

RALEIGH Amazon.com will begin collecting sales tax in North Carolina beginning Feb. 1, a company official confirmed Monday.

The move will make North Carolina the 20th state in which the online retailer collects sales tax, according to Amazon’s website. It’s unclear why Amazon decided to make the change now. A spokesman didn’t respond to questions about the timing of the move and whether the Seattle-based company would begin collecting sales tax in other states besides North Carolina on Feb. 1.

Read more here: Amazon to begin collecting sales tax in NC on Feb. 1 | CharlotteObserver.com

Amazon still has no offices and its affiliates program is still closed. In short, it has no physical presence of any sort in the state and still must abide by state regulation. That makes your statement about physical presence in the state redundant and irrelevant.

Your Forbes article is dated is March 4th while Amazon didn’t start collecting the tax until May 1st. You missed Florida, chief.

If you're buying goods in Florida and California, Amazon is collecting a sales tax. Unless you're going back in time to anywhere before May 1st somewhere in Florida to buy stuff from their website, they've been collecting a tax for over 2 months. So your claim that they haven't is false. Now, I'm not even sure why you'd state they haven't been collecting it but they clearly have. We're in July, son.

If you’re going to hurl insults while avoiding stepping on your own crank then at least make sure you get your facts straight first.

Hurling insults? I'm sorry you're a shill for this company and have regurgitated every talking point of its owners:

MonkeyParking chief vows to fight San Francisco with every banana in its arsenal | VentureBeat | Mobile | by Richard Byrne Reilly

The cease and desist letter that we received from the City of San Francisco is premised on a fundamentally wrong assumption: that our application purports to allow users “to buy and sell” parking spaces. That is not the case.

The shared economy trades on information, not on goods or services or other commodities. We are very surprised that the City of San Francisco, which prides itself of being a liberal and tolerating city, does not see that their cease and desist letter is an open violation of free speech, contrary to the First Amendment of the US Constitution (“I have the right to tell people if I am about to leave a parking spot and they have the right to pay me for such information”).

We are consulting with legal counsel as we speak but we are confident that we would prevail any such legal challenge against our service.

How much are you getting paid to advertise this company? You have word for word regurgitated the defense made by the company. From this being a violation of the 1st amendment, to this not being the sale of parking spaces to it being based on the trading of information. So, how much are you getting paid?

MadLib · Jul 8, 2014

Ahlevah said:
Repeating the same falsities over and over doesn't make them true. Let me use an example to illustrate how your caboose has jumped the rails.

Let’s assume that I’m a collector of rare Tiffany lamps and I place an advertisement in a collectors' journal concerning paying a 10% finder’s fee to anyone who provides me with information that leads to the successful purchase of a genuine Tiffany lamp.

I receive contact from someone in Cincinnati who claims to have a lead on a lamp. So I fly there and agree to meet with this person. He takes me to an antiques store where, lo and behold, I spy what appears to be just such a lamp. I then confirm that my payment of the fee, once I negotiate the purchase, is dependent upon me verifying the authenticity of the lamp. He agrees. So I purchase the lamp, but then, after I have it examined by an expert, I discover that it is a clever copy and I'm now the proud owner of a fake Tiffany lamp. So, in accordance with the terms I originally set forth to my contact, I refuse to pay the fee and my "seller" grudgingly accepts this news.

The first question is what was my contact selling me? A lamp? No. He didn't own it. He wasn’t selling me any object, public or private. He was selling me a lead on a lamp. Did he commit fraud when I found out the lamp was fake? No, he did not, because he had no knowledge that the lamp was fake and, in any case, he wouldn’t be paid until I was satisfied with the purchase. Was his contact with me an advertisement for the sale of the lamp? No, it was not, since, as I said, you can’t sell what you do not own. My seller was selling information, and made no representation that he owned the lamp. He certainly didn’t place a sign on it in the store representing that he was selling it, so he did not run afoul of any law prohibiting such conduct. And if someone else had wanted to buy it I don’t see how he could have prevented them.

So, as you can see, your argument has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. Thanks for playing? You’re welcome. Please come again.:2wave:

It's clearly not just a finder's fee. A more accurate analogy would be one in which your hypothetical seller prevents other people from purchasing the lamp (needless to say, it's not his) until you get there. No matter how you look at it, use of the parking spot is what's being sold, not information on its location.

Hatuey · Jul 8, 2014

MadLib said:
It's clearly not just a finder's fee. A more accurate analogy would be one in which your hypothetical seller prevents other people from purchasing the lamp (needless to say, it's not his) until you get there. No matter how you look at it, use of the parking spot is what's being sold, not information on its location.

He's been regurgitating the company's defense for 20 pages. What he doesn't realize is that the advertisement could say

Get your freshly cut trees at Bradley Park.

No price. When you get there, you'd still be paying for the trees. Not the information on where to get them. That's just as illegal as this. You have no right to set up a business consisting on the trade and purchase of public property.

Lakryte · Jul 8, 2014

Do I have a right to walk into a grocery store, prevent others from buying the last remaining honey ham, and then use an app to tell people I am holding the ham for them and will give it to them for $X? No.

Do I have a right to park in a parking space, prevent others from parking there, and then use an app to tell people I am holding the space for them and will give it to them for $X? No.

Ahlevah · Jul 8, 2014

MadLib said:
It's clearly not just a finder's fee.

The example was used to illustrate the point that the "Monkey" is not "selling" the parking spot; the Monkey is selling information concerning the availability of the spot just as the person seeking the finder's fee is not selling the lamp. As to your other point, the analogy does not hold because, while I'm not within my rights to prevent another person from purchasing the lamp, I am within my rights to vacate the parking space when I choose to vacate it as no one's claim on it has any more priority than mine.

Ahlevah · Jul 8, 2014

Hatuey said:
The fact that Amazon isn't collecting a sales tax on your orders and you haven't paid sales taxes. :shrug:

In other words, you got punked on that point. Just admit that 20 + 1 = 21.

Hatuey said:
Amazon has no presence in North Carolina and YET it is still subject to its tax and regulation laws. Again, the state/city must argue that the company is dealing and operating within its borders.

Actually, that's not true. The final purchaser of the item owes the tax. Normally, the state forces compliance by getting the sellers to collect and remit the taxes. But since Amazon doesn't have a physical presence in the state, it can thumb its nose at North Carolina. Thus the state is not trying to force Amazon to pay the tax. It's trying to get purchasers' information so it can collect it from them:

Because Amazon has no offices or warehouses in North Carolina, the company isn't required to collect the customary sales tax shock on shipments. North Carolina requests voluntary compliance from taxpayers, asking them to include a "consumer use tax" on their individual income tax returns for anything purchased or received through the mail.

Read more at Amazon sues N.C. over customer data :: WRAL.com

You are your own worst enemy. You keep citing sources that make my point. Thanks, and keep up the good work! :2wave:

Ahlevah · Jul 9, 2014

Hatuey said:
If you're buying goods in Florida and California, Amazon is collecting a sales tax. Unless you're going back in time to anywhere before May 1st somewhere in Florida to buy stuff from their website, they've been collecting a tax for over 2 months. So your claim that they haven't is false. Now, I'm not even sure why you'd state they haven't been collecting it but they clearly have. We're in July, son.

:lamo Where did I claim that they weren't collecting the tax? I said California didn't collect taxes until Amazon decided they wanted to pay them because they decided to build fulfillment centers in the state. I also said I don't pay sales taxes on merchandise I buy from Amazon at which point you called me a liar. Newsflash: I don't live in California, and never have I claimed that I do!

Hatuey · Jul 9, 2014

Ahlevah said:
:lamo Where did I claim that they weren't collecting the tax? I said California didn't collect taxes until Amazon decided they wanted to pay them because they decided to build fulfillment centers in the state.

That's just as false as the previous statement. California was about to pass a law that would have made them pay anyways, Amazon decided to pay because there was literally no other option for them. Not because they chose to.

I also said I don't pay sales taxes on merchandise I buy from Amazon at which point you called me a liar. Newsflash: I don't live in California, and never have I claimed that I do!

So you live in Florida? Which is it? In either you pay a sales tax.

Dezaad · Jul 9, 2014

Ahlevah said:
The example was used to illustrate the point that the "Monkey" is not "selling" the parking spot; the Monkey is selling information concerning the availability of the spot just as the person seeking the finder's fee is not selling the lamp. As to your other point, the analogy does not hold because, while I'm not within my rights to prevent another person from purchasing the lamp, I am within my rights to vacate the parking space when I choose to vacate it as no one's claim on it has any more priority than mine.

Monkey is selling an agreement to vacate the spot for a specific person. This is not merely selling information. The city has the right to make such an agreement illegal.

Ahlevah · Jul 9, 2014

Hatuey said:
So you live in Florida? Which is it? In either you pay a sales tax.

You're getting warmer, but, no, I don't live in Florida, either.

Hatuey · Jul 9, 2014

Ahlevah said:
In other words, you got punked on that point. Just admit that 20 + 1 = 21.

You said "You forgot Florida", ummm no I didn't. I told you that Floridians pay sales taxes too just like California if that's where you live. Now you're saying you live elsewhere, if you live elsewhere, why mention Florida?

since Amazon doesn't have a physical presence in the state, it can thumb its nose at North Carolina. Thus the state is not trying to force Amazon to pay the tax. It's trying to get purchasers' information so it can collect it from them:

Lmao you better tell Amazon that considering it's been collecting sales in North Carolina.

You are your own worst enemy. You keep citing sources that make my point. Thanks, and keep up the good work! :2wave:

You're selectively quoting what you want. North Carolina law today ensures that Amazon is forced to pay taxes even without having a physical presence in the state:

Amazon.com Help: About Sales Tax on Items Sold by Amazon.com

Items sold by Amazon.com LLC, or its subsidiaries, and shipped to destinations in the following states are subject to tax:

Arizona
California
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

No physical presence? Still has to pay sales tax. Hm...

Ahlevah · Jul 9, 2014

Hatuey said:
That's just as false as the previous statement. California was about to pass a law that would have made them pay anyways, Amazon decided to pay because there was literally no other option for them. Not because they chose to.

Internet retailers still have a couple of SCOTUS opinons that back their position, but it's clear that Amazon.com decided to stop bleeding money fighting states where it planned to locate facilities. Where is does not, it's still refusing to remit the taxes. At last count, Amazon still did not collect taxes for 21 states, notwithstanding their strong desire to get their grippers on the money. And for the record, Overstock.com is still thumbing its nose at New York even though it "lost" by having SCOTUS not take up its appeal against the state. It effectively trumped New York's law by severing its relationships with affiliates located within the state. So your claim that New York left Amazon with no options is nonsense. It could have done what Overstock did and severed its relationships with its New York affiliates, thereby circumventing the state's law.

Amazon Rejected by U.S. High Court on New York Sales Tax - Bloomberg

Ahlevah · Jul 9, 2014

Hatuey said:
You said "You forgot Florida", ummm no I didn't. I told you that Floridians pay sales taxes too just like California if that's where you live. Now you're saying you live elsewhere, if you live elsewhere, why mention Florida?

Because you underlined a sentence from a source that claimed Amazon collected taxes in 20 states. That was true back in March when the Forbes article was written, but it's not now. Florida was the missing 21st state from your article. In any case, relax. No reason to get your panties in a wad over it. I just thought it good sport to point out that you're not as smart as you think you are.

Hatuey · Jul 9, 2014

Ahlevah said:
Internet retailers still have a couple of SCOTUS opinons that back their position,

No, they really don't. States need to demonstrate that customers in the state have direct links to the state in order for the state to have jurisdiction on the matter.

but it's clear that Amazon.com decided to stop bleeding money fighting states where it planned to locate facilities.

There are no facilities being built for Amazon in NC. It lost the fight and has to collect sales taxes. Deal with it.

Where is does not, it's still refusing to remit the taxes. At last count, Amazon still did not collect taxes for 21 states, notwithstanding their strong desire to get their grippers on the money.

Yes, because the majority of states in this country are run by hillbillies who don't really understand that ordering from internet is no different than ordering from a catalogue. However, as you can clearly see, that's changing and it's not looking good for online retailers.

And for the record, Overstock.com is still thumbing its nose at New York even though it "lost" by having SCOTUS not take up its appeal against the state.

Yes, that's great for Overstock, however Overstock is nothing like MonkeyParking. It isn't entirely dependent on the city to do its business. MonkeyParking is entirely dependent on city infrastructure to generate money.

It effectively trumped New York's law by severing its relationships with affiliates located within the state.

That's great, now it has lost business 2 places, it has to pay more for affiliates outside of NY to send the products and it has lost the ability to create affiliates in the state of NY. All so it could avoid taxes. Talk about a terrible business plan.

So your claim that New York left Amazon with no options is nonsense.

Reading is your friend, California was about to pass a law which would have made the affiliates issue irrelevant. California left Amazon without a choice. The same kind of law passed in North Carolina where Amazon has no affiliates in still collects sales taxes.

It could have done what Overstock did and severed its relationships with its New York affiliates, thereby circumventing the state's law.

Do you not understand how this loses business on two fronts?

The first - no local affiliates? It costs more to ship products.
The second - no local affiliates? No profit to be made from them.

------------

You don't know anything about this type of business. Goodnight.

Ahlevah · Jul 9, 2014

Hatuey said:
There are no facilities being built for Amazon in NC. It lost the fight and has to collect sales taxes. Deal with it.

Once again, you're choking on your Cheerios here:

Why doesn't the out-of-state retailer collect the tax?

If the retailer is located out-of-state and is not engaged in business in the state, the state cannot require the retailer to collect North Carolina's tax. However, some out-of-state retailers voluntarily collect the North Carolina tax as a convenience to their customers.

North Carolina Department of Revenue - Frequently Asked Questions - Use Tax

Amazon.com chose to collect the tax because...

... (t)he company says it will be making an unspecified investment in North Carolina.

Amazon.com's decision to collect NC sales taxes could mean $20M to $30M for state | Under the Dome Blog | NewsObserver.com

Hatuey · Jul 9, 2014

Ahlevah said:
Once again, you're choking on your Cheerios here:

You're so laughably uninformed in this matter it's almost sad. Let me explain this to you again. First of all, Amazon has NO physical presence in NC. It doesn't have reps, it doesn't have centers. As a matter of fact, it went as far as to terminate its affiliate program. Why? Because even without a physical presence in the state (well, whatever you think physical presence means), that was enough legal ground according to NC state law for it to collect sales tax.

Amazon Pulls the Plug on NC Associates while Google and Apple Enjoy Sweet State Tax Deals - SEW

This morning, Amazon Associates in North Carolina are awakening to some bitter news. As of today, their accounts are officially closed. This is anticipation - yes, anticipation, not the actual passage - of a state budget that includes a provision requiring companies with affiliate programs to pay an internet sales tax.

Just a week ago, Amazon sent a warning to NC affiliates that the accounts would be closed if the bill was passed.

The reasoning behind the provision is that affiliates are considered employees and therefore establish a physical presence in NC, which puts them in the "pay an internet sales tax" column.

Are you reading that? Without a physical presence from its own employees in the state, Amazon was still forced to collect a sales tax because it fulfilled this part of NC law:

engaged in business in the state,

Now, even though Amazon pulled out of NC and supposedly (according to you really) isn't required to pay sales tax. It still collects for the state of NC. Why is it collecting for a state it doesn't have to collect for?

Amazon.com Help: About Sales Tax on Items Sold by Amazon.com

Why? Here is why:

Amazon customer privacy rights upheld, but battle likely to continue | TechJournal

The other option is the state auditing Amazon and the state pursuing Amazon for the fact that in accordance to NC law it owes sales taxes! This is not out of the goodness of Amazon's heart. It is out NCs established established legal framework and the very real consequences Amazon faces for non compliance: audits, lawsuits etc.

Amazon.com chose to collect the tax because...

You're not reading this stuff are you? I stated there are no facilities being built in North Carolina. Your article is from January, it's now July. List of locations/affiliates in NC:

Amazon in North America

United States
Corporate Headquarters:
Seattle, WA

Other Locations:
Phoenix, AZ
Las Vegas, NV
New York, NY
Herndon, VA

Fulfillment Centers:
Arizona
California
Delaware
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Nevada
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington

Customer Service Centers:
North Dakota
Washington
West Virginia
United States Subsidiaries
A2Z Development Centers
Charleston, SC
Cupertino,CA (dba:Lab126)
Irvine, CA
Lake Forest, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Luis Obispo, CA

A9:
Palo Alto, CA
Alexa:
San Francisco, CA

Audible:
Newark, NJ

Brilliance Audio:
Grand Haven, MI
CreateSpace:
Charleston, SC
Fabric.com:
Kennesaw, GA

IMDb:
Seattle, WA
Studio City, CA
Quidsi:
Jersey City, NJ

shopbop:
Madison, WI
New York, NY

Woot!:
Carrollton, TX
Zappos.com:
Las Vegas, NV
Shepherdsville, KY

However, how does all of this apply to MonkeyParking? Well it's simple really. MonkeyApp turns tens of thousands into employees. It doesn't generate money without their transactions and sales. That (and the fact that it is dependent on public property) is what allows SF/California to have jurisdiction over the matter.

Ahlevah · Jul 9, 2014

Hatuey said:
You're so laughably uninformed in this matter it's almost sad. Let me explain this to you again. First of all, Amazon has NO physical presence in NC. It doesn't have reps, it doesn't have centers. As a matter of fact, it went as far as to terminate its affiliate program. Why? Because even without a physical presence in the state (well, whatever you think physical presence means), that was enough legal ground according to NC state law for it to collect sales tax.

You chide me for quoting a source that's seven months old but then go on to quote a source that's more than five years old and I'm the one who's uninformed?

And even then you give me more ammo:

The reasoning behind the provision is that affiliates are considered employees and therefore establish a physical presence in NC, which puts them in the "pay an internet sales tax" column.

Did you read that part? :Oopsie

You know, this is truly amazing. Presumably, the people who collect the tax keep up with current events. Even when you've clearly been caught with your pants down when I quote from the taxing authority's website that North Carolina can not force companies that do not have a presence in the state to collect the taxes you insist that it can. Truly amazing. The manly thing to do would be to just nad up and admit that you've been bitchslapped on this point: States can not always force compliance with their laws.

Ahlevah · Jul 9, 2014

Hatuey said:
Now, even though Amazon pulled out of NC and supposedly (according to you really) isn't required to pay sales tax. It still collects for the state of NC. Why is it collecting for a state it doesn't have to collect for?

Unlike you, I'm not going give a definitive reason as to why Amazon.com chose to begin collecting the tax. I know the company supports a national law that would require online retailers to collect and remit sales taxes, and I suspect that this has to do with the company's long-term aim to reduce delivery times buy having fulfillment centers closer to its customers. It then makes sense to put in motion a process to collect the taxes. But that's speculation. The simple fact is that no state can currently require an online retailer to collect and remit sales taxes if the merchant does not have a physical presence or affiliates/agents located within the state.

MadLib · Jul 9, 2014

Ahlevah said:
The example was used to illustrate the point that the "Monkey" is not "selling" the parking spot; the Monkey is selling information concerning the availability of the spot just as the person seeking the finder's fee is not selling the lamp.

Your analogy doesn't apply precisely because the person receiving the finder's fee isn't blocking access for other people who might want to buy the lamp; it's completely apples to oranges. If the sellers were only selling information, then they couldn't deny access to the space for other people.

As to your other point, the analogy does not hold because, while I'm not within my rights to prevent another person from purchasing the lamp, I am within my rights to vacate the parking space when I choose to vacate it as no one's claim on it has any more priority than mine.

Then that's the de facto sale of that parking spot. You may be within your rights to occupy the space, but since it's public and isn't yours, you can't use it (and thereby deny others the right to access it) for profit.

Tell me: is there any meaningful difference between me setting up a lawn chair on a parking spot and using the app to sell access to the space, and me parking there in my car and using the app to sell access to the space?

Ahlevah · Jul 9, 2014

MadLib said:
Tell me: is there any meaningful difference between me setting up a lawn chair on a parking spot and using the app to sell access to the space, and me parking there in my car and using the app to sell access to the space?

Yes, there is: I'm located physically in the city; I'm not using the spot for its intended purpose (parking a vehicle); and this sort of activity can be readily enforced. Also, I could not make a market in selling knowledge of the availability of the space because anyone could see that it's available. And as I've said repeatedly in this thread, no legal condition is placed on when I have to move my vehicle. If the window is "No parking between the hours of 2 AM to 6A M, Monday to Thursday" and I choose to vacate the spot of 5:30 PM on any weekday I am well within my rights to do that. Finally, if I put up a chair and prevent others from parking, there is no doubt that I intend to enforce a claim I have no rights to; parking spots are not meant for parking chairs. However, if I'm in a vehicle, I have a legal right to vacate it when I choose to vacate it.

MadLib · Jul 9, 2014

Ahlevah said:
I'm not using the spot for its intended purpose (parking a vehicle)

The intended purpose of a parking spot is not for a someone to park there so that he or she can sell use rights to someone else; it's so that people can park there and engage in other nearby activities on foot.

Also, I could not make a market in selling knowledge of the availability of the space because anyone could see that it's available.

First of all, it's not available if it's being occupied by a person sitting in a chair. Second, the person looking to buy the spot might not necessarily be within viewing distance of the space.

Finally, if I put up a chair and prevent others from parking, there is no doubt that I intend to enforce a claim I have no rights to; parking spots are not meant for parking chairs. However, if I'm in a vehicle, I have a legal right to vacate it when I choose to vacate it.

So they're different? :lol: Seriously, they're the same thing. The only difference is what the lazy leech upon society decided to sit on. People have no right to make a scarce good even more scarce by forcing other people to pay for it.

By the way, if you're going to continue to claim that this is just selling information, can you explain what selling access to the spot would be (in contrast to merely selling information)?

MadLib · Jul 9, 2014

Napoleon said:
If selling access to part of a public street is an illegal transaction then I want to know when the parking meters will be removed and public parking permit requirements will be repealed.

Um...that's the city government - the same group that owns and maintains the parking spot - selling access to it. It's illegal for someone who doesn't own a service to sell access to it. The person or group that does own it is free to do whatever he/she/it wants with that service.

Ahlevah · Jul 9, 2014

MadLib said:
The intended purpose of a parking spot is not for a someone to park there so that he or she can sell use rights to someone else; it's so that people can park there and engage in other nearby activities on foot.

Yeah, that's true, but the city is making an assumption that everyone who's vacating a spot and letting other people know about it for money isn't using the space legitimately. As I've said, the only way I see for the city to stop people from holding spots is for it to prevent any organized communication by silencing services such as MonkeyParking. I just don't see that it has that authority in this instance because this is a foreign entity with no physical presence in the city. Even if I accept your proposition that this activity is illegal, I don't see any way to stop it, just as I see no way to stop piracy of intellectual property. In many ways, the Internet is fundamentally changing the way people interact and do business in the world. Businesses and governments will either learn to adapt or perish. It's as simple as that.

MadLib said:
So they're different? :lol: Seriously, they're the same thing. The only difference is what the lazy leech upon society decided to sit on. People have no right to make a scarce good even more scarce by forcing other people to pay for it.

I don't take it as a given that this service will make parking spaces more scarce. The number of people looking for a parking space at any given time is a zero-sum game. But if the purpose of the service is to reduce wait times by alerting others to the availability of parking spaces then it stands to reason that waiting times, certainly for people who use the service, should drop. And if people are given a financial incentive to vacate spaces then it also stands to reason that more spaces should be available. And, as Darwinian as it sounds, if the price of on-street parking goes up, some people might have to take the bus. Supposedly people spend about 27-minutes on average looking for a spot in the Mission District. In order to bring wait times down, you have three choices: increase supply, reduce demand, or both.

MadLib said:
By the way, if you're going to continue to claim that this is just selling information, can you explain what selling access to the spot would be (in contrast to merely selling information)?

Selling access would be telling other people that they were not entitled to it, that I'd "sold" it to someone else. If they're not aware that I'm leaving, then they have no more claim on it than the user of the MonkeyService. He's only doing what anyone else is entitled to do: park his car. His only advantage should be that he's aware that I'm leaving before anyone else becomes aware of that fact.

S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Ahlevah

Hatuey

Rule of Two

MadLib

monstrous vermin

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Lakryte

Ahlevah

Ahlevah

Ahlevah

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Dezaad

Ahlevah

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Ahlevah

Ahlevah

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Ahlevah

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Ahlevah

Ahlevah

MadLib

monstrous vermin

Ahlevah

MadLib

monstrous vermin

MadLib

monstrous vermin

Ahlevah