New York Wants to Lay A Tax Burden on Out-of-State Small Businesses
If you are an Internet entrepreneur or small business offering an affiliate program, New York’s Governor Eliot Spitzer wants to wrap you up in regulation and bureaucracy. Even if you run your business from Ohio or California or Hawaii.
If your business sells more than $10,000 to those in New York locations and you have an affiliate based in New York, you would be required to collect and remit taxes to New York authorities. For small businesses and entrepreneurs who sell through affiliate programs, this could be bad news.
Janet Attard of BusinessKnowHow.com writes that this plan, if it becomes law, would burden small businesses with extra expense and paperwork:
“I think the Governor’s proposal, should it be passed, will set a precedent that will unreasonably burden and harm New York small businesses and small businesses across the county.The burden comes in the form of extra costs to buy tax databases and to find and set up an online shopping cart to properly collect sales taxes. There’s also a huge time component (huge for the typical small business) associated with reporting and remitting the taxes.
New York’s tax system - and some in other states as well- is particularly cumbersome for small businesses because of the requirement to collect and remit taxes at the rate in effect in the taxing jurisdiction (usually the country or city) where you ship the product in the state. There are over 75 such taxing jurisdictions in effect in NY. Furthermore, there is no one tax rate that applies to all the taxing jurisdictions. * * *
If that all sounds like a huge nightmare, it is. Even though I’ve been able to get much of the process automated at this point, it still takes me or whoever I assign to the task at least half a day to fill out the quarterly tax report for New York. Imagine the time and effort that would be involved if all 50 states decided to put through proposals such as Governor Spitzer’s.”
And therein lies the point. What if all 50 states decided to do the same thing? Instead of leveling the playing field, it would further tip the scales in favor of big businesses that can afford to buy the databases and have in-house accounting departments to handle this.”
Oh, but wait,” you say. “Shouldn’t everyone pay sales tax?” Well, of course I am not suggesting that those obligated to pay sales or use taxes should refuse to pay.
The issue here is whether a seller that sells across state lines can be required to be the sales tax collection arm and remit it to each and every taxing authority. A U.S. Supreme Court case called Quill Corp. vs. North Dakota provides protection for interstate commerce, on the grounds that to require an out-of-state seller to comply with every tax jurisdiction in every state would be a crushing burden on interstate commerce.
According to the Tax Foundation, the Supreme Court said that a seller “must have a physical presence in a state in order to require collection of sales or use tax for purchases made by in-state customers. Physical presence means offices, branches, warehouses, employees, etc. The existence of customers alone” was not enough.
That case, applied routinely to mail order companies, encourages interstate commerce by stating that out-of-state sellers do not have the burden of complying with each and every taxing authority, unless they also have a significant presence in the state. Unfortunately, Governor Spitzer’s measure has been craftily cast in terms of Amazon.com versus in-state brick and mortar retailers. A recent New York Times blog post shows the lack of understanding of what this would mean for small online businesses. People are ganging up on Amazon, pointing out how easy it would be for Amazon to collect and remit taxes. The plight of smaller online businesses — especially microbusinesses — is getting lost in the shuffle.
The oh-so-informed Dawn Rivers Baker, Editor of the MicroEnterprise Journal, said to me in an email discussion, “I hope Governor Spitzer is open to feedback on this proposal from the state’s small business community. Everybody’s eyes are on Amazon with these proposals. In terms of fairness, nobody seems to consider it unfair for remote sellers to have to remit to a nationwide tally of over 7500 taxing jurisdictions, compared to only one for Main Street businesses!”
And if we think that somehow by adding sales tax collection it will stop people from buying online and drive them to buy from local retailers, think again. That’s contrary to human nature. Nothing is going to turn back the tide of online shopping. All shopping online is not about price — often it’s about getting a wider selection. Often it’s purely about convenience — of being able to shop from your home or office without having to run all over town. To assume that everything boils down to price and that requiring sales tax to be collected will somehow cause people to shop less online, is naïve — and years too late.


On the OPEN Forum





Discussion Boards
Nas | February 26th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Similar obligations exist to anyone, anywhere in the world if they sell more than a certain amount to British customers within the UK. They are obliged to register for UK VAT (sales tax), charge VAT and submit this to the UK tax collection gestapo (sorry, I mean HMRC). At least in the UK there is only ONE jurisdiction to deal with, not the 7500 in the US. Incredible! I would involve Competition Authorities in this, as small business simply cannot compete with the large on this.
Whilst I can understand the need to collect taxes in this manner, I find most law-makers are ill-equipped to fully understand the impact of their whims.
Making things simple, including taxes, encourages growth and innovation. Complicating things with huge tax and administrative burdens just stifles small business, innovation and job-creation.
How about small business stop supplying NY - NY’ers will be up in arms when they cannot get deals available to residents/businesses in all other states.
UK small businesses fully support their American counterparts against this draconion proposal.
Rob | February 26th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Couldn’t agree more! This just smacks of posturing by Spitzer. What he may not be considering - all of the small business owners in New York that could be affected by other states doing the same. I live in NYC and walk to work in midtown and pass store after store that have thriving businesses based on internet commerce and wholesale walk-ins.
If You Offer a Web Affiliate Program, Look Out for New Taxation » Small Business Trends | small business experts | February 28th, 2008 at 8:49 am
[…] New York Wants to Lay A Tax Burden on Out-of-State Small Businesses. […]
Anita Campbell of Small Business Trends | February 29th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Nas, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Most lawmakers are ill-equipped to understand the impact of their tax actions. The dollar signs and Euro signs blind them to the bigger picture.
And Rob, I agree that New York businesses get value from e-commerce, and will be unhappy campers if their state’s activity triggers more taxation of THEM.
The worst part is that this one taxing proposal is just the tip of the iceberg. Here in the States, tax authorities everywhere are getting very aggressive about all kinds of taxes that fall under the general heading of “business activity taxes” or BATs. The U.S. House’s Committee on Small Business has been holding hearings on the overly-aggressive tax enforcement activities that are breaking the backs of small businesses everywhere that try to conduct their business honestly but get snared on small technicalities (some extremely “creative”) and have to pay taxes here, there and everywhere.
Anita
Ya think Eliot needs better advisors? : The Journal Blog | February 29th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
[…] good friend Anita Campbell of Small Business Trends has an article on the subject posted today at the OPEN Forum Blog, so I’m not going to restate what she says there. […]
Chris | March 10th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Wow. This is just sad. Bad news for business and just a bad idea all around. “To assume that everything boils down to price and that requiring sales tax to be collected will somehow cause people to shop less online, is naïve — and years too late.” Well said and I couldn’t agree with you more. Have they truly thought this through?
Anita Campbell of Small Business Trends | March 10th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Of course, the real question is whether in light of today’s news, Spitzer’s plan is going anywhere.
Spitzer Gets Spitzered
My guess: this proposal will die soon.
Nas | March 10th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Well I guess extra curricula activities need to be funded!