redcloud asked: Re: Amazon
From the wording you quoted, it sounds like if they don't cancel the affiliate program for Californians, they will have to collect California sales tax for any customer that goes through a California-based referral link, EVEN IF THE CUSTOMER IS NOT IN CALIFORNIA! (Please forgive the all-caps -- I just needed to emphasize that part.)
This would no doubt confuse and anger any non-Californian customer.
Given that, canceling the program if the bill is put into law as worded seems a reasonable response -- not an effort to get bloggers to come out against the bill, or punitively deprive the state of California of revenue.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, nor at home, no matter what the neighbors may say about me.
If that is the case, that would be cause for alarm. But that could easily have been spelled out by Amazon in the letter. Here, again, is what they said:
[The law] specifically imposes the collection of taxes from consumers on sales by online retailers - including but not limited to those referred by California-based marketing affiliates like you - even if those retailers have no physical presence in the state.
This is how I read that statement:
The law imposes the collection of taxes on sales by online retailers, even if those retailers have no physical presence in the state.
The sales that we must collect tax on include sales that were referred by affiliates.
The bit about “California affiliates like you” is somewhat of a canard. It’s like saying “We must impose taxes on all sales, including but not limited to sales of stereos” or “We must impose taxes on all sales, including but not limited to sales paid by credit card.”
Amazon’s letter goes on to talk about how much they oppose the law, and the big bad meanies who support the law, leading me to believe that their stance isn’t based in actual, practical issues like the one you describe. Otherwise you’d think they’d mention the unfairness to non-Californians.
I am trying to find the text of the law, or a more detailed analysis, to figure out for sure if what you’ve suggested is right. If it is, I’m not sure why they didn’t phrase it exactly as you have.
UPDATE: I HAVE ACTUALLY READ THE NEW LAW AND HERE IS WHAT IT SAYS
