|
AJParker wrote: > "I think you're right that ultimately this is an issue that needs to be decided at the Federal Level and the state doing so appears to be an over-reach. I wonder how much money the state is prepared to spend on defending this law? I doubt that's been estimated into the total revenue they expect this bit to bring in...." <
I think that "potential litigation" is the main reason why other states aren't making any changes to the extremely vague and overbroad language used in the New York law. Other states probably expect to "piggy-back" on New York's legal work, and may try to delay any litigation to see the outcome of constitutional (commerce-clause) litigation regarding the New York law.
Of course, in order to fairly "piggy-back" on the New York law, other states would probably also need to adopt the extraordinarily narrow interpretation that New York's tax agency adopted; if other states seek broader interpretations, then even if the New York law were upheld "as applied," states which applied the law differently would need to litigate further -- and the merchants litigating and appealing over the New York law might allow the New York appeals to take a back seat if they think another state's interpretation of the law is "worse" (more obviously unconstitutional) than New York's.
But in any event, I don't think state legislators care much about the potential cost of constitutional litigation.
|