State Sales Tax Enforcement After the Supreme Court’s Denial of Cert in Amazon/Overstock

As we have discussed in prior posts, Amazon and Overstock.com filed petitions for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the New York Court of Appeals decision that the New York affiliate click-through nexus statute, on its face, did not violate the Commerce Clause. Late last year, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petitions and, therefore, the New York Court of Appeals’ decision stands.

While the denial of cert means that the New York statute is constitutional on its face, it is not an indication that the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the New York Court of Appeals’ decision or that the Court has blessed affiliate click-through nexus laws. It simply signifies that the issues presented in that case did not warrant review. Less than 5% of all petitions for certiorari are granted.

States, however, have taken the denial of cert as a prompt to propose affiliate click-through nexus laws. Thus, representatives have introduced bills in the legislatures of four states—Hawaii, Indiana, Tennessee, and South Carolina—that are modeled after the New York statute. There are some variations among this proposed legislation, but in general each provides for a presumption of nexus if the remote seller pays commissions to a person (the affiliate) who resides in the state for referrals by a website link or otherwise, if the retailer’s sales in the state from such referrals exceed $10,000. The bills would also permit the retailer to overcome the presumption by showing that the affiliate does not otherwise solicit sales on behalf of the retailer or otherwise make a market in the state. The New York Court of Appeals in the Amazon/Overstock cases stated that the presumption was rebuttable, so that the retailer could prove that the affiliate did not engage in solicitation activities on behalf of the retailer in New York. The rebuttable presumption saved the constitutionality of the statute.

February 2013: An Eventful Month In The Debate Regarding Use Tax Collection By Internet Retailers

If it seems like there has been a lull in the debate regarding whether ecommerce vendors should be required to collect sales and use tax, this month has seen a series of developments that demonstrate the conflict continues apace.

On February 6, 2013, New York’s highest court heard oral arguments by attorneys for Amazon.com, Overstock.com, and the state Department of Taxation and Finance in the Internet retailers’ respective constitutional challenges to the New York affiliate nexus law enacted in 2008. (The cases are captioned Amazon.com v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Court of Appeals Case No.APL-2012-00045, and Overstock.com v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Court of Appeals Case No. APL-2012-0001.)  Recall that, under the New York law, an out-of-state retailer is presumed to be soliciting sales through representatives in the state if it enters into a contract with a New York resident for the placement of a link on the resident’s website that refers internet users to the out-of-state retailer’s website, pays the New York resident compensation based on sales to customers completed through the link, and makes a minimum $10,000 in such sales to New York customers.  See N.Y.Tax Law § 1101(b)(8)(vi).  A retailer with an in-state representative that solicits sales is required under New York law to collect and remit use tax on sales to New York customers.  The state prevailed before the trial court and intermediate appellate court finding that the law was not unconstitutional on its face.  According to reports, the Justices on the Court of Appeals appeared somewhat receptive to Amazon’s arguments that (1) the law violates the Due Process Clause because the presumption cannot be effectively rebutted and (2) the law violates the Quill “physical presence” standard of nexus.  That said, the state has the advantage of having prevailed below.  Decisions by a state high court are usually issued several months after argument, and we will continue to monitor the case.

Distribution of Promotional Materials in Indiana is Not Taxable

In D.H. Holmes Company, Ltd. v. McNamara, 486 U.S. 24 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state did not violate the Commerce Clause when it imposed a use tax on the distribution of catalogs and other promotional materials mailed from outside of the state since the company on whose behalf the catalogs were distributed had nexus with the state. Prior to that date, there were some state courts and tax commentators which had declared that a destination state’s imposition of tax on catalogs printed and mailed from outside of the state to residents of the state violated the Commerce Clause.

As a result of the D.H. Holmes decision, a large number of states have imposed a use tax on promotional materials distributed in their state on behalf of a company with nexus in the state (e.g. Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee).  There have been some exceptions to this rule (See e.g., Michigan (Sharper Image Corp. v. Department of Treasury, 550 N.W.2d 596 (1996)), New York, Ohio, California, and Pennsylvania).

Recently, the Indiana Tax Court ruled in the case of AOL, LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue that the distribution of CD ROMs and other marketing materials on behalf of AOL by AOL’s printer and assembly house was not taxable. The basis for the decision was that AOL had supplied the components—the CD ROM discs, paper, and other components of CD ROM packages—to the assembly house and printer. Thus, the assembly house and printer were merely providing a service, and not selling tangible personal property. Under the Indiana statute, the provision of services is not taxable. It is only the sale of tangible personal property that is taxable. Nor were the components themselves taxable because only the final CD ROM package and printed materials were distributed in Indiana. The components were transformed by the assembly houses and printers into final products.

This decision is in line with prior decisions of the Indiana Tax Court, including Ameritech Publ’g, Inc. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 916 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2009) and Morton Bldgs., Inc. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 819 N.E.2d 913 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004).  Thus, any direct marketer which has been distributing promotional materials in Indiana and paying use tax on those promotional materials should consider filing a claim for refund for taxes paid if the direct marketer supplied the underlying raw materials to the printer or other party assembling the promotional materials.