Florida Introduces Affiliate Nexus Legislation

For the sixth year in a row, Florida legislators introduced a bill that (like many states before it) would create a rebuttable presumption that any out-of-state Internet retailer or mail order seller which enters into an agreement with a Florida resident (an “affiliate”) for paid referrals is subject to the State’s sales and use tax.  Referrals which subject out-of-state sellers to Florida tax are broadly defined and can be via “a link on an Internet website, an in-person oral presentation, telemarketing, or otherwise.”  Out-of-state sellers who have cumulative gross receipts of $10,000 or less from the referrals would not be subject to Florida tax.  As in several other states, the bill would allow sellers to rebut the presumption that they are subject to tax by submitting evidence that the affiliates “did not engage in any activity within [Florida] which was significantly associated with the dealer’s ability to establish or maintain the dealer’s market…during the 12 months immediately before the rebuttable presumption arose.”

As we have written previously, in response to a challenge by Amazon.com to a similar law enacted in 2008 in New York, a New York State appeals court held that the law was not unconstitutional on its face because it allows a retailer to rebut the presumption of solicitation.  The court remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the law violated the Constitution’s Commerce and Due Process Clauses as applied to Amazon.com.  In the meantime, as similar affiliate nexus laws have been passed in a handful of other states, many retailers have terminated their affiliate relationships.  Also, last spring, in a case argued by George Isaacson and Matt Schaefer of Brann & Isaacson, an Illinois court found that Illinois’ affiliate nexus law, which does not allow an affected retailer to rebut the statute’s conclusive determination that having affiliates in the state creates nexus, violates the Commerce Clause as well as the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

California Affiliate Nexus Law Goes Into Effect

We have written frequently about the California affiliate nexus statute, AB 155, which was adopted in June 2011, but was temporarily repealed in September 2011, pending Congressional action on a bill rejecting the Quill physical presence test. Since Congress has not enacted such a law, AB155 is set to go into effect tomorrow.

The California Board of Equalization (“BOE”) undertook a lengthy rulemaking process over the past year to flesh out the requirements of the law. Much of this effort is reflected in the BOE’s newly amended version of California Regulation 1684. Here are some of the key points:

• The law provides that an affiliate relationship will create nexus only if the payment to the affiliate is based upon a completed sale of tangible personal property; i.e., a commission-based arrangement. Thus, pay-per-click payment arrangements with affiliates do not create nexus. 
• The statute, and Regulation 1684 which interprets the statute, provides that if the arrangement with the affiliate is for the purchase of advertisements to be delivered on the Internet, the retailer will not be deemed to have nexus if the affiliate does not directly or indirectly solicit customers in California through the use of flyers, newsletters, telephone calls, email, blogs, social networking sites, or other means of direct or indirect solicitation specifically targeted at potential customers in California. Thus, if a retailer places content on the website of a California affiliate that provides information regarding the retailer’s products and the affiliate links to the retailer’s website, so long as the affiliate does not make any solicitations on behalf of the retailer that specifically target CA residents, the retailer should not have nexus under the California statute. 
• Regulation 1684 provides for a safe harbor if (1) the agreement between the retailer and affiliate provides for a prohibition of California solicitation activities on behalf of the retailer, such as distributing flyers or coupons or sending emails; (2) the retailer obtains certificates annually from the California-based affiliates that it has not engaged in any such prohibited solicited activities; and (3) the retailer accepts such certificates in good faith. 

Committee Hearings Held on Remote Collection Bills; Coalition Forms to Demand True Simplification Of State Sales Tax Systems, Defend Quill

We have written previously about attempts by Congress to overturn the physical presence nexus standard of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota via the Main Street Fairness Act, the Marketplace Fairness Act, and the Marketplace Equity Act. The bills vary in their specifics as we discuss here and here, but most simply put, all three bills would permit states to require remote sellers to collect and remit sales and use tax despite such sellers having no physical presence in the state. While it is difficult to predict what Congress may do in an election year, it appears that so far, the Main Street Fairness Act has not made much progress through Congress since being introduced. The other two bills have seen some committee action lately, however, as discussed below.

Meanwhile, a coalition has formed to help protect remote sellers’ interests. The TrueSimplification of Taxation (“TruST”) Coalition was formed jointly by the Direct Marketing Association, the American Catalog Mailers Association, the Electronic Retailing Association, and NetChoice to represent “American businesses in the fight to keep interstate commerce and competition free from unfair tax burdens imposed by states where our businesses have no operations or representation.” Brann & Isaacson partners George Isaacson and Martin Eisenstein assisted in forming the coalition and provide ongoing advice regarding the sales and use tax collection implications to remote sellers.

Storm Clouds on the Horizon for Direct Marketers Regarding Required Use Tax Collection

After the introduction in July 2011 of the “Main Street Fairness Act” by three senators from the Democratic Party, federal legislation intended to eliminate the Quill physical presence requirement for state sales and use tax collection has gathered increased support. A group of 10 Senators from both sides of the aisle introduced the “Marketplace Fairness Act” on November 9, 2011. The new bill, S.1832, is sponsored by Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Tim Johnson (D-SD), John Boozman (R-AR), Jack Reed (D-RI), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Robert Corker (R-TN), and Mark Pryor (D-AR).  On October 13, 2011, Representatives Steve Womack (R-AR) and Jackie Speier (D-CA) introduced in the House a similar, but not identical, bill called the “Marketplace Equity Act.”

As we wrote in our post on August 8, the Main Street Fairness Act, which was sponsored by Senators Durbin, Johnson, and Reed, does not provide meaningful measures to simplify the arduous burden of sales and use tax collection. The Marketplace Fairness Act (and its House counterpart) would provide even less simplification than does the Main Street Fairness Act. It is ironic that despite the unfairness of this proposed legislation to catalogers, online retailers, and other direct marketers, the Marketplace Fairness Act is more likely to pass than prior legislative efforts, because of the increased number of sponsors from both political parties, as well as the coalition of states, industry groups, and big retailers (including e-commerce giant Amazon.com), that have announced their support for this new bill. Thus, the alarm bells should be ringing loudly for Internet and other direct marketers.

Bills Introduced in Congress to Override Quill in Favor of Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement

On July 29, 2011, the so-called “Main Street Fairness Act” was introduced in both houses of Congress. The bills, introduced as H.R. 2701 in the House of Representatives and as S. 1452 in the Senate, are identical. Under the proposed law, Member States in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) would be authorized to require remote sellers (i.e., Internet retailers and other direct marketers with no physical presence in the state) to collect and remit state and local sales and use taxes notwithstanding the substantial nexus standard established by the Supreme Court in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota. There are currently 24 full and associate member states in the SSUTA, representing approximately 36% of the population of the United States. Many larger states, including California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas are not SSUTA members.

Similar bills have been introduced in past sessions of Congress, including in 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2010. Brann & Isaacson Senior Partner, George Isaacson, has testified with regard to such prior legislation in 2003, 2006, and 2007 that the SSUTA has not achieved the goal of genuine simplification and uniformity of states sales and use tax systems.  The requirements imposed on states by the current Congressional bills are substantially identical to prior versions and, in some respects, are even less demanding for states. In addition, H.R. 2701 and S. 1452 contain no express minimum level or “small seller” exemption that would protect smaller retailers from the obligation to collect use tax in all member states. Instead the bills defer to small seller exemptions established by the SSUTA states themselves.

We will keep you apprised of further developments regarding the bills.