TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Amazon Associates to Terminate North Carolina Members

73 点作者 smakz将近 16 年前

8 条评论

ryanwaggoner将近 16 年前
It sounds like North Carolina is trying to claim that they are owed sales tax on any transactions that occur between Amazon and a customer if the referral came from an Amazon Associate in NC, even if neither Amazon or the customer is in NC. Why stop there? Why not tax all transactions where the person originally heard about the product from someone in NC, or where the computer they use to purchase was bought in NC. Give me a break.<p>This is bullshit and unconstitutional and will hopefully be struck down if it's passed at all.
评论 #662377 未加载
评论 #662402 未加载
kqr2将近 16 年前
California has something called a <i>use</i> tax. Turbo Tax will prompt you about this.<p>In theory, you need to pay a use tax for things purchased outside of the state from a vendor who did not collect sales tax (e.g. Amazon or other internet retailer outside of California)<p>So, while it is true that California cannot levy taxes on out of state vendors, they can levy a use tax on its residents.<p><a href="http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/usetaxreturn.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/usetaxreturn.htm</a><p><a href="http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/faqusetax.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/faqusetax.htm</a><p><i>Do I owe use tax?<p>You generally owe California use tax when you use, consume, give away or store tangible personal property (i.e., products you can see, weigh, feel or touch, such as clothing, books, computers, DVDs or CDs) in California that you purchased from an out-of-state vendor. If the out-of-state vendor does not collect the California tax on your purchase, you must pay the tax.</i>
评论 #662456 未加载
评论 #663441 未加载
iends将近 16 年前
Misleading headline because the email says "Please note that this is not an immediate termination notice and you are still a valued participant in the Associates Program". They are only going to terminate things if the legislation is passed, which it has not yet.<p>This morning when I got the email I could not find out the specifics of the bill. If anybody has more information, please post it.
评论 #662243 未加载
评论 #662284 未加载
评论 #662448 未加载
zaidf将近 16 年前
Not a proud moment for my state.
ghshephard将近 16 年前
California had a similar "Amazon Tax": AB 178. It was killed:<p>"Current law, under Quill v. North Dakota, requires a business have a physical presence or “nexus” in a state in order for the state to compel that business to collect and remit sales taxes. AB 178 represented an attempt to circumvent the federal interstate commerce law by presuming that a company has a physical nexus if business is solicited through a third-party advertiser that is based in California."<p>April 28th: "However, a bit of rare good news for California taxpayers came out of Sacramento yesterday. Just as the bill was scheduled for consideration, the Assembly Committee on Revenue &#38; Taxation voted to remove AB 178 from the docket, effectively taking this odious piece of legislation off the table, at least for this year."<p><a href="http://www.atr.org/california-amazon-tax-bill-dies-quick-a3170" rel="nofollow">http://www.atr.org/california-amazon-tax-bill-dies-quick-a31...</a>
asolove将近 16 年前
I understand that this has an "adverse" affect on those who use these programs, but any taxes have an adverse affect on any commerce. Is there a reason why other transactions should be taxed and these shouldn't?
评论 #662294 未加载
评论 #662304 未加载
jhancock将近 16 年前
"We regret to inform you that the North Carolina state legislature (the General Assembly) appears ready to enact an unconstitutional tax collection scheme that would leave Amazon.com little choice but to end its relationships with North Carolina-based Associates. You are receiving this e-mail because our records indicate that you are an Amazon Associate and resident of North Carolina."<p>There are two factually false parts to this quote.<p>"enact an unconstitutional tax collection scheme"<p>Its fine to say it should be challenged in court, but its not at all clear its patently unconstitutional.<p>"would leave Amazon.com little choice but to end its relationships with North Carolina-based Associates"<p>I'm willing to bet if other states followed suit, Amazon would find the "choice".<p>State taxes on internet sales are going to be sought after as states look for ways to solve their revenue problems. I'm not arguing in favor of such taxes but do see this as a sign of the times.
sutro将近 16 年前
Time for TechCrunch to do another poll. What's more important: Amazon or North Carolina?