On 3/12/2010 12:29 PM, steve harley wrote:
On 2010-03-12 10:11 , P. J. Alling wrote:
Personally I think it's actually not Constitutionally
valid, a violation of the Interstate Commerce clause for one State to
try to enforce it's tax laws within another State. But hell who pays
attention to that musty old document these days.
well, since the focus in the law is on whether Amazon (or whichever
other corpse) does or does not have a business presence in the state,
it seems obvious the crafters of this law had the constitution in
mind, and it's more a question of disagreement on the fine points
(e.g. does an affiliate in Colorado amount to a business presence or
not?)
Perhaps, but the affiliate is the one responsible for paying and
reporting the Tax not Amazon. The state is requiring Amazon, an actor
with no "real" presence under the states jurisdiction, to take
responsibility for an entity that's nothing more than a sub contractor.
The upshot is now the State will lose even indirect revenue from these
transaction, since no transactions will take place.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
