[Kevin]

CONFIRMED. Now we need help from the Assembly.

Reported in a couple of locations, with one very credible source (being the National Retail Foundation.)

NY Senate MAY have voted to repeal the Amazon tax this week.

I will keep you posted.

[Brent E.]

I woke up 30 seconds ago. I hope Im not still dreaming. Looking forward to hearing more about this.

[Rhea]

Fingers crossed that it's true. I will phone Joe Bruno's office this morning to see if I can find anything out.

[Kevin]

Also, Bruno is quitting Friday

[Rhea]

Gosh, and I haven't bought him his retirement gift yet. I gotta get busy on that.

[Kevin]

Buy it from Amazon, just for grins.

[Rhea]

How's this for a lovely parting gift?

http://www.amazon.com/Statements-Financial-Accounting-Concepts-Standards/dp/0470185449

[Kevin]

I like the notion, but you might want to buy him a thinner book. With larger font and shorter words.

[Kevin]

By the way, my State Senator's local office opens at 9 today. I'll be on the phone.

[Rhea]

I'm going to phone John McLaughlin at WTEN later this morning. He's the political reporter there. Nothing on their web site about this.

Nothing on the NYS legislation web site (hasn't been updated since 7/2).

http://assembly.state.ny.us/

[mellie]

I am not really optimistic. As far as I can tell, Senate voted on Bill S8638 June 24 & passed, sent it to Assembly who sent it to ways & means on 24. The latest memo from NYS was on June 30.

Bill link http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S8638

[Kevin]

That bill doesn't appear in the database either. NY is terrible at updating web data.

[mellie]

I added link while you were posting here it is again http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S8638

[Kevin]

Here's the link we were looking at:

http://www.nrf.com/modules.php?name=...d=25&mn_type=2

Any members here that can quote that article in part?

[Kim Salvino - buy.at]

I am anxiously awaiting any and all updates on this and forwarding everything I find to our CFO, who then forwards it to our Legal...

I don't want to get too excited, but this seems to be good stuff.

[Kevin]

I talked to the Governement Relations department at the DMA this morning. They are looking into it.

[Kevin]

Per Senator Alesi's office, there is currently no matching bill in the NYS assembly at the moment, and the latest recorded action is the vote Mellie recorded above.

Waiting to hear back from Susan John's office, who is in the Assembly.

[Rhea]

I just got off the phone with WTEN. McLaughlin is in a morning staff meeting but I did speak to a staffer who said he would pass the info along. Hopefully I'll hear back later today.

[Kevin]

Just got off the horn with Assemblywoman Susan John's office, and they were fantastic. I expect more info from them later this week on the possible "rumored" repeal as well as:

1.) Whether ANY similar (there is no matching bill) legislation is in front of the assembly.
2.) They are calling Ways and Means to figure out likelihood of it being introduced*
3.) Whether or not a repeal vote is scheduled for a special Senate session in late July, or if in fact it has already occured.

So at the end of the day (with the assembly currently on break til 2009, and Senate on break except for one issue until late July, the big point to make is: This ain't law yet.

* This was introduced by "Rules", meaning no Senators were willing to stick their name on it. I was told in these cases, it's unlikely to pass the assembly.

I think the lesson I learned today is how to ask the right questions. Prior to this Senate activity (the tax act I mean), I've never had a real reason to engage a local politician. Outcome aside, the experience has been very pleasant.

I look forward to hearing more form Susan John's office. They are aware of our meeting on July 28th, and of the negative impact this legislation has had on the affiliate on online retail industries.

[Haiko de Poel, Jr.]

S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________

8638

I N S E N A T E

June 19, 2008
___________

Introduced by COMMITTEE ON RULES -- read twice and ordered printed, and
when printed to be committed to the Committee on Rules

AN ACT to repeal subparagraph (vi) of paragraph 8 of subdivision (b) of
section 1101 of the tax law relating to an evidentiary presumption to
facilitate the administration of the sales and use tax where a person
making sales of taxable property or services in the state uses resi-
dents in the state to solicit sales

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1 Section 1. Subparagraph (vi) of paragraph 8 of subdivision (b) of
2 section 1101 of the tax law is REPEALED.
3 S 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

Source: http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S08638&sh=t

Bill Summary - S08638 Back | New York State Bill Search | Assembly Home See Bill Text

S08638 Summary:

BILL NO S08638

SAME AS No same as

SPONSOR

COSPNSR

MLTSPNSR

Rpld S1101 sub (b) 8 sub (vi), Tax L

Repeals provisions of law relating to an evidentiary presumption to facilitate the administration of the sales and use tax where a person making sales of taxable property or services in the state uses residents in the state to solicit sales.

S08638 Actions:

BILL NO S08638

06/19/2008 REFERRED TO RULES
06/24/2008 ORDERED TO THIRD READING CAL.2231
06/24/2008 PASSED SENATE
06/24/2008 DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY
06/24/2008 referred to ways and means

S08638 Votes:

S08638 Memo:

Source: http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S08638

(Red and bold Added by me)

[Kevin]

I'm looking into that H. The word repeal does exist there, but it appears to be the repealing of a previous tax code section, which I'm trying to dig up.

At present, it appears the NRF headline was VERY misleading. However, I think some good news has come of it.

[Brian - ShareASale]

According to the bill that is removing paragraph vi of subsection b of paragraph 8 etc... that is this paragraph:

(vi) For purposes of subclause (I) of clause (C) of subparagraph (i)
of this paragraph, a person making sales of tangible personal property


or services taxable under this article ("seller") shall be presumed to
be soliciting business through an independent contractor or other
representative if the seller enters into an agreement with a resident of
this state under which the resident, for a commission or other
consideration, directly or indirectly refers potential customers,
whether by a link on an internet website or otherwise, to the seller, if
the cumulative gross receipts from sales by the seller to customers in
the state who are referred to the seller by all residents with this type
of an agreement with the seller is in excess of ten thousand dollars
during the preceding four quarterly periods ending on the last day of
February, May, August, and November. This presumption may be rebutted by
proof that the resident with whom the seller has an agreement did not
engage in any solicitation in the state on behalf of the seller that
would satisfy the nexus requirement of the United States constitution
during the four quarterly periods in question. Nothing in this
subparagraph shall be construed to narrow the scope of the terms
independent contractor or other representative for purposes of subclause

[Kevin]

And Brian dug it up. Thank you, Brian. I was having a terrible on Google with that.

[Jorge - JRami]

3 S 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

So does that mean no tax should be charged as of the 19th?

[Rhea]

This is impossibly confusing. I wish I could read the NRF text but it would seem that their headline is misleading. Perhaps someone who's a member of NRF could ask if a representative could come talk to us about this matter.

I spoke with Joe Bruno's legislative assistant. He said that the legislature is not currently in session and the senators are not likely to be recalled until this fall except to vote on property tax relief legislation. He said that if anything does happen regarding S8638 it will probably not happen until early next year.

He also said that this bill, while passed in the senate, has not been passed by the state assembly and in fact does not have a sponsor in the state assembly. That could be good news.

And biggest surprise (to me) of all was finding out that Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of repealing this legislation. Go Rudy!!!