Thanks to Amazon's nationwide network of warehouses, the company already collects sales tax for the majority of states.
Rauschenberger says there is more housekeeping that needs to be done before the state collects.
It gives the example of New Jersey that puts a sales tax on yarn purchased for art projects but not on yarn earmarked for sweaters.
It's clear that the court's decision will mean extra cash for states.
"For years, this situation has resulted in substantial loss of revenue to states, thus increasing the tax burden on those who do pay the taxes they owe", said Bill Waltz, vice president of taxation and public finance for the Chamber.
"When the day-to-day functions of marketing and distribution in the modern economy are considered, it is all the more evident that the physical presence rule is artificial in its entirety", Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.
The imbalance has also hurt brick-and-mortar stores. "It's a drain on our economy and a drain on our main streets and our local sellers", said Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of MA.
That led Amazon.com to start collecting taxes on its entire platform, including third-party merchants, in Washington starting in January.
"I think most Tennesseans would agree that we are fortunate not to have a state income tax, and to help ensure that remains the case, it is important our sales tax system works". Amazon declined to comment on the Supreme Court ruling Thursday.Читайте также: Government to review medicinal use of cannabis
Some states could move within weeks or months to require sales-tax collection by out-of-state retailers under existing laws, getting an expanded revenue stream in place before the busy holiday shopping season.
The current regulation "allows remote sellers to escape an obligation to remit a lawful state tax is unfair and unjust", added Kennedy. The case also provides some guidance to states by offering South Dakota's law as a likely model. The court left room for future legal challenges, so state legislation could still face delays and backlash from the e-commerce industry.
A Washington law that took effect January 1 exempts out-of-state businesses with annual sales of $10,000 a year or less.
Last year, states could have collected as much as $13.4 billion in additional online sales taxes, according to the General Accountability Office.
"There's a lot of things that we do that make it easy for any business, large or small...to be in compliance", said State Sen.
While the decision does not significantly change the fortunes of big chains or e-commerce retailers, the impact from the decision is likely to be felt by smaller online businesses.
In giving a victory to the states, the high court said that rule is outdated.
The point is further reinforced by analysts like the ones from Baird Equity Research who said they expected a "limited impact on Amazon" from the ruling which means less upside for its rivals.
Justices cited that agreement, which requires simplified tax structures and other provisions that "made life easier for retailers, and Washington has done exactly the same thing", said Scott Peterson, vice president of USA tax policy at Avalara, a Seattle-based tax-compliance software maker.
Yet a majority of the states say they are losing billions in revenue, and they are supported by many large, so-called brick-and-mortar retailers like Wal-Mart that do pay sales tax, regardless of whether their sales are done in stores or online. For instance, South Dakota is hoping to collect as much as $50 million per year which is still fairly noticeable for a state that only collects $1.5B in total revenue per year.При любом использовании материалов сайта и дочерних проектов, гиперссылка на обязательна.
«» 2007 - 2019 Copyright.
Автоматизированное извлечение информации сайта запрещено.
Код для вставки в блог