SCOTUS declines to arbitrate web retailer tax collection debate
Amazon and Overstock.com hoped to eliminate a New York State law that allowed for the collection of state taxes for goods shipped to that state.
December 03, 2013 at 08:05 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Cyber-Monday 2013 has come and gone, but one thing that will be sticking around is the practice of collecting state taxes on the goods purchased online during it. On Monday, Dec, 2 the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene on the decade-old argument of whether or not states can force online retailers to collect state sales tax for items purchased online.
The challenge to this law was brought to the SCOTUS by Amazon and Overstock.com in 2008, and they hoped to eliminate a New York State law that allowed for the collection of state taxes for goods shipped to that state. New York was among the first states to implement laws that required online vendors to collect taxes and the motion to do so was upheld by its highest state court.
While Overstock and Amazon argue that charging taxes squelches their ability to grow in an increasingly competitive marketplace, owners of physical stores have frequently pointed to lack of tax collection as an unfair advantage for online vendors.
The decision does not set any official word on the right to impose tax collection, but it does suggest that it is a state's right to do so.
In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not collect tax from an online vendor unless that vendor had a physical presence in their state. The New York state law has been able to circumvent that by focusing on marketing arrangements made by online dealers. New York considers any state-based website that directs traffic to an online retailer as a physical marketing presence, therefore making online retailers liable for collecting tax.
Earlier this year the Senate approved legislation that would make it easier for states to collect online sales taxes, but the law has been held up in the House by tax opponents.
Amazon has urged a more holistic solution to what has thus far been a patchwork of state and federal provisions. “Congress can and should act to resolve” the sales-tax issue, the WSJ reports an Amazon spokesman said Monday.
Check out these related stories from InsideCounsel:
Amazon tries to take sales tax battle to Supreme Court
Amazon sued over requiring security screenings on unpaid time
Pending SCOTUS ruling could change the face of securities litigation
Cyber-Monday 2013 has come and gone, but one thing that will be sticking around is the practice of collecting state taxes on the goods purchased online during it. On Monday, Dec, 2 the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene on the decade-old argument of whether or not states can force online retailers to collect state sales tax for items purchased online.
The challenge to this law was brought to the SCOTUS by Amazon and Overstock.com in 2008, and they hoped to eliminate a
While Overstock and Amazon argue that charging taxes squelches their ability to grow in an increasingly competitive marketplace, owners of physical stores have frequently pointed to lack of tax collection as an unfair advantage for online vendors.
The decision does not set any official word on the right to impose tax collection, but it does suggest that it is a state's right to do so.
In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not collect tax from an online vendor unless that vendor had a physical presence in their state. The
Earlier this year the Senate approved legislation that would make it easier for states to collect online sales taxes, but the law has been held up in the House by tax opponents.
Amazon has urged a more holistic solution to what has thus far been a patchwork of state and federal provisions. “Congress can and should act to resolve” the sales-tax issue, the WSJ reports an Amazon spokesman said Monday.
Check out these related stories from InsideCounsel:
Amazon tries to take sales tax battle to Supreme Court
Amazon sued over requiring security screenings on unpaid time
Pending SCOTUS ruling could change the face of securities litigation
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readTurning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
6 minute readKhan Defends FTC Tenure, Does Not Address Post-Inauguration Plans
Best Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250