Love to shop on the Internet? Maybe spend hundreds, possibly thousands of dollars a year? If you're like most Americans, you probably weren't aware -- or chose to ignore -- the sales tax owed to the state where you had your purchases shipped.

But the states aren't ignoring it. In fact, momentum is building to have out-of-state Internet retailers collect the sales tax, since it's difficult to force every online shopper to figure out and fork over the taxes owed to their respective states.

And the money left on the table is huge -- an estimated $23 billion in uncollected taxes will be owed to the states by 2012.

Since the start of the year, a number of states from California to Tennessee have introduced legislation to force out-of-state Internet retailers to collect sales tax from online shoppers. Illinois is the latest, with Gov. Pat Quinn signing HB 3569 into law on Thursday, a move that prompted e-commerce giant (AMZN) to terminate its relationship with 9,000 affiliates rather than collect the sales tax. California, meanwhile, held a revenue and taxation assembly committee hearing last Monday to address AB 153, authored by Rep. Nancy Skinner (D-Oakland). The committee is expected to take a vote on the measure in the coming weeks.

"If everybody paid the sales tax that's due, the states' budgets wouldn't be as bad as they are," says Diane Yetter, president of Yetter Consulting Services and the founder of the Sales Tax Institute.

Circumventing a Supreme Court Decision

New York was successful in passing legislation in 2008, when it found a way around the U.S. Supreme Court's Quill v. North Dakota decision. That 1992 ruling said retailers or sellers had to have a physical presence in the state, in order for the state to require them to collect sales tax on its behalf.

New York was like a number of other states that are watching their sales tax revenue come under pressure, as Internet shopping soared. But New York took a novel approach in addressing its dilemma, with the so-called "Amazon Law." The state deemed any New York-based affiliates used by out-of-state Internet retailers, like e-commerce giant, provided a physical presence to the out-of-towner. Affiliates run their own website but will post a retailer's advertisement or links on their site. In exchange, the affiliate gets a commission if a reader clicks on that ad or link and then continues to the retailer's site and makes a purchase. The law applies to retailers who receive a total of more than $10,000 in referrals within a 12-month period from New York affiliates.

Rhode Island and North Carolina quickly followed New York's lead with the passage of their own "Amazon" bills. But the e-commerce giant filed a lawsuit against New York shortly after the law passed, claiming affiliates should not be construed as a physical presence. A New York state appeals court ruled in November that the state's new law is constitutional and enforceable, unless a retailer can show on a case-by-case basis their own particular situation makes the law inapplicable.

In addition to its New York lawsuit, Amazon also terminated its relationship with North Carolina and Rhode Island affiliates, rather than collect and remit sales tax to those two states. But despite Amazon's actions -- and its threats to dump affiliates in other states that pass similar legislation -- a number of states have moved forward in introducing "Amazon" legislation.

States with "Amazon" Bills Pending

Here's a list of states with bills pending that would require out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax from online shoppers, if they use affiliates within that state: In California, opponents and proponents of AB 153 packed a hearing room last week. Supporters of the bill claim out-of-state retailers get an automatic price advantage, since they don't collect sales tax. Opponents, meanwhile, declared their livelihoods will be threatened if the bill passes, predicting the out-of-state advertisers they rely on for income will terminate their relationships, rather than collect the sales tax.

Rep. Skinner rounded up signatures of 103 supporters -- from big box national retailers like Home Depot (HD) to powerful organizations like the California Teachers Association, which relies on state coffers to fund education. She also received support from mom-and-pop businesses, like independent bookstore Moe's Books in Berkeley, Calif. Opponents, led by Performance Marketing Association, had 29 signatures from supporters -- ranging from the California Small Business Association to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, to a wide breadth of independent businesses such as Roy's Trains & Things in Clovis, Calif.

Barnes & Noble (BKS), which employs more than 4,100 workers and operates nearly 110 stores in California, paid approximately $45 million in sales tax last year, according to Gene DeFelice, the book giant's general counsel, who spoke at the hearing.

Taxes Ignored with a 'Wink and a Nod'

"This has become a serious competitive issue," DeFelice said. "Those of us who pay taxes and employ California workers and operate stores in communities across the Golden State are in a serious competitive disadvantage that is not sustainable. This pricing advantage is approximately 10% and the ironic thing is that the sales tax is still due. It's just not being paid. It's just receiving a wink and a nod. There is an irony here where we're putting California businesses out of business."

According to report last year by San Diego State University professor Richard Parker, California-based businesses lose an estimated $4.1 billion annually to online retailers. Those losses are expected to rise to $7.7 billion in 2015 and $14.3 billion 2020, Parker's report estimates the equivalent of 18,300 full-time jobs are lost to out-of-state online sales -- with that figure projected to increase to 34,100 in 2015 and 63,400 in 2020.

The state's Board of Equalization (BOE), meanwhile, estimates $1.1 billion is lost annually in uncollected sales and use taxes. But opponents say Amazon and other out-of-state retailers will drop their affiliates if pressured, resulting in no new sales tax collected. And the in-state website operators will have to leave the state to maintain their livelihoods.

Online shoppers, meanwhile, would still be able to circumvent paying sales tax even if any of these bills pass by going directly to the out-of-state retailer's website, or an out-of-state affiliate's website, to make their purchases.

Currently, California has an estimated 25,000 affiliates -- and Amazon told the BOE it would drop its 10,000 affiliates in the state if AB 153 goes through. Amazon declined to comment for this story and did not appear at the hearing.

The BOE estimates state and local revenues would rise $317 million in the fiscal 2011-to-2012 if everything stays the same with the number of affiliates. But factoring in an Amazon pullout, that anticipated gain would shrink to $114 million in the same period. California jobs at affiliates are also expected to be hurt by the bill, the BOE says, as well as revenues from personal income tax and corporation tax, but the scope of that shrinkage is unknown.

Of the 25,000 California affiliates, 25% operate their businesses full time and 4% have more than five employees, says Rebecca Madigan, executive director of Performance Marketing Association. She says California affiliates generated $1.6 billion in revenues in 2009 and paid $124 million in state income taxes., which has relationships with 15,000 retailers for its discount coupons, says its business has grown to 20 full-time employees since it formed in 2006 in Santa Barbara, Calif. And the company is on tap to hire an additional 10 more employees this year.

"We continue to grow and continue to contribute back to California," says Alexis Caldwell, its director of affiliate and strategic partnerships. "We're proud to be from California. We're proud to be a California business. I was raised in Sacramento. We don't want to go anywhere. We want to stay here, so please, please, please, I urge you to say 'no' to AB 153."

The Tip of the Iceberg

And collecting state sales tax in the Internet era, says Diane Yetter, is only going to get more complicated.

Some states, for example, have finally figured out how they each want to treat downloaded software. California considers such software an intangible product that is not taxed, while Illinois assesses a sales tax on it. But as cloud computing, and streaming audio and video, ramp up in demand among businesses and consumers, the sales tax conundrum is once again rearing its ugly head -- as purchases are made over the Internet.

"Some states tax access services, so streaming software will likely be taxed," Yetter says. "In many states, you're taxed on software downloads because you acquire it and take possession, but with streaming software you never take possession."

Virtual currency is also another taxing affair that some states will need to tackle in the future, Yetter predicts. Virtual currency is frequently used in online games to buy points -- and those points can be used, in some cases, to buy tangible products, like a pizza that's delivered to your door.

"I'm not aware of any states that are addressing this right now, but this will be one of the next big challenges," Yetter says. "Technology moves very fast and there's a lot of confusion on how you tax it."

Increase your money and finance knowledge from home

Banking Services 101

Understand your bank's services, and how to get the most from them

View Course »

Managing your Portfolio

Keeping your portfolio and financial life fit!

View Course »

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum


Filter by:

I acknowledge paying sales tax for an item I purchase from a local retailer.
However, why should my state benefit when it is necessary to shop out of state for an item that is not available from any business in my state?

May 07 2013 at 1:20 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

THe massive size of our state, federal and local governments are the real problem. The waste and decision making involved is immense with no responsibility. We are taxed far more than our fore fathers who revolted to form our own country because of it. Since the feds tax my income, all other taxes should be illegal as double, triple taxation. All taxes should have the requirement of a popular vote before it can go into effect unchanged from original form.

March 15 2011 at 8:42 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Don't you just LOVE the HYPOCRISY???? Corporations can take the jobs overseas, put their money in offshore accounts or conduct business in such a way as to AVOID PAYING U.S. taxes .... but the poor "Joe-Six-Pack" consumers are constantly the ones under surveillance and being stalked by the law to pay those sales and use taxes, etc. etc. The American government loves keeping their roaming hands in the taxpayers pockets while giving a FREE PASS to the RICH AND CORPORATIONS. What's WRONG with this picture????

March 15 2011 at 6:01 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

"Board of Equalization". Did I not read that in Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged? I will do everything in my power to now buy from only states and web sites that do not tax my internet purchases.

March 15 2011 at 5:44 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Just as corporate greed has created an unnecessary and expensive overlay converting an auction site into a finance company, and destroying its utility for
sales, liberal, tax-and-waste, government greed opts for one better by destroying buying AND selling on the internet. Already, inflated shipping costs make
shopping prices laborious, and they want to add costs on that? Noted that big box stores, who deign only to stock that which moves the fastest, forcing hunt downs of items on the net and if, you can find one, old time mom and pop stores, support this, greatly narrowing sources and expediting planned obsolescence.
Equals an obvious attempt to decrease competition and inflate prices...There are
states with no sales taxes that would LOVE for you to move your jobs there, so...
pack and git!!

March 15 2011 at 2:09 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

The profligate States, ever more eager to hire more workers and spend more money, will resort to anything to enhance revenues, despite the Supreme Court's ruling that physical presence in a State should determine whether sales tax could be collected. It is not enough that States impose Income Taxes, Unemployment Taxes (on employers),Sales Taxes, Use Taxes, Cigarette Taxes, Alcohol Taxes, Mining Extraction Taxes, and fees and licenses of all kinds, rangeing from business licenses, marriage licenses, drivers' licenses, auto registration fees, to ...and on and on. Where will it stop?

March 15 2011 at 12:46 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

The politicians want to get their grimmy hands on everthing to fund programs and laws that do nothing for us but line their pockets

March 15 2011 at 11:11 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

Maybe if the states were run efficiently they wouldn't need the addition tax revenue. Reduce the benefit packages for the state and municipal employees and you wouldn't need all the taxation.

March 15 2011 at 9:43 AM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

I suspect that soon this form of micro-protectionism from the states will lead to "border guards" at each road leading into each respective state to search vehicles for contraband that needs to be taxed. How does any state have the audacity to place a sales tax for a sale that takes place away from their home turf? In reading the reaction that California is having with this idea, the BOE advised that if the current resolution to tax out of state commerce is passed it would actually reduce revenues by over $200 million since the "in-state" links it claims as the rationale for collecting the tax would shut down and take their employees elsewhere.

March 15 2011 at 7:48 AM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply

The money that you save by refinancing every month can be sensibly used to repay your unique loan or to upsurge your savings. Do not forget to search online for "Mortgage Refinance 123" they found 3.17% rate for me. They taught me how to refinance smart.

March 15 2011 at 4:54 AM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply