Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    ABW Veteran jc101's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    4,597
    A big problem with this AB 178. internet retailers could lose 40% of there revenue?
    Maybe I'm going to far but anyone know how much the sales tax would be? cause if internet retailers already pay anywhere from 5-20%+ commissions on sales for affiliates. Even if this sales tax was 8-20%, this would mean that internet retailers who have affiliate programs could lose up to 40% of there revenue a year (for those who pay 20-30% commissions).

    As there was a video from overstock.com on fox's site about this issue, there new york affiliates did 60 million in sales. which means since they already pay 5-10% commissions they would owe affiliates 3-6 million, as well as the sales tax which would be around 3-6 million also probably, which means 6-12 million of there 60 million would be spent, and what about the money they use for promoting and advertising, that would take out another 10-20 percent in new york which would be anywhere from 12-24 million all together which is almost 40% of there revenue gone.

    based on these calculations, if I did this correctly, this bill could cause 40% loss of revenue of merchants who have affiliate programs. (which would most likely cause us affiliates to go out of business, in the states where this new law gets passed too.

  2. #2
    OPM Queen Kristin Kinsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 4th, 2006
    Location
    Rolling Hills of Ohio
    Posts
    1,707
    A vast majority of sites will have the consumer pay the sales tax. There are few that I know of now, that eat their local sales tax. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    KK

  3. #3
    Super Dawg Member Phil Kaufman aka AffiliateHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 22nd, 2007
    Location
    West Covina, CA
    Posts
    8,443
    This is totally misguided.

    CUSTOMERS pay the tax. Period.

    fyi - Today, CA sales tax went up 1%; rates vary by county, but LA County is now 9.25%.
    Since June 10, 2012 a vegan aarf but still writing the Hound Dawg Sports Blog
    "If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?" -John Wooden;
    "Raj, there’s no place for truth on the internet." -Howard Wolowitz[/SIZE]

  4. #4
    Full Member jtoskey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    94
    I think the issue with the NY tax was that it was retroactive, so the online retailer would actually owe backtaxes and they presumeably wouldn't be able to retroactively collect from customers.

  5. #5
    Super Dawg Member Phil Kaufman aka AffiliateHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 22nd, 2007
    Location
    West Covina, CA
    Posts
    8,443
    Quote Originally Posted by jtoskey
    I think the issue with the NY tax was that it was retroactive, so the online retailer would actually owe backtaxes and they presumeably wouldn't be able to retroactively collect from customers.
    I believe it was only retroactive for merchants that failed to register within the required period.

    Either way, that was only an issue for one quarter and not an on-going situation.

    p.s. nice avatar
    Since June 10, 2012 a vegan aarf but still writing the Hound Dawg Sports Blog
    "If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?" -John Wooden;
    "Raj, there’s no place for truth on the internet." -Howard Wolowitz[/SIZE]

  6. #6
    Advocate mellie's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    1,925
    Probably more accurate to say that there was a grace or an amnesty period. Just semantics. The NYS law went into effect 4/23; if a merchant registered by 6/1 they did not have to remit sales tax they should have collected 4/23 -5/31 (unless of course they collected it) and were not liable for penalties.

    If merchant did not register, had a nexus, did not collect/remit sales tax penalties apply back to 4/23.

    Merchants who did not register by 6/1 and had a nexus between 4/23-5/31 actually still have nexus and could be liable for taxes.
    These amendments went into effect April 23, 2008. However, a business covered by the presumption that registered by June 1, 2008, could avoid the assessment of any prior sales tax owed, including penalty and interest, if certain conditions were met.
    Important point for merchants - Removing affiliates to avoid nexus may not mean you do not have nexus.

    Before taking action removing affiliates might be a good idea to consult an sales tax attorney to make sure it is of any real benefit (in terms of avoiding a nexus)
    Melanie
    President - Affiliate Advocacy 2008 ShareaSale Performance Industry Advocate Award, 2009 Affiliate Summit Pinnacle Award - Affiliate Advocate
    Affiliate Advocacy
    NYAffiliateVoice Seery Writing

  7. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Featured: [Google Wallet] Mobile shopping: a big opportunity for retailers
    By Chuck Hamrick in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 16th, 2011, 07:23 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 13th, 2009, 12:28 PM
  3. 2008 Top 25 Internet Retailers
    By Jason Rubacky in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 27th, 2008, 07:38 PM
  4. Niche Internet Retailers Hit Their Stride
    By buy_online in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 4th, 2004, 11:42 AM
  5. Top 50 Internet Retailers
    By smoothcorp_bryan in forum Newbie Affiliate FAQs & Helpful Articles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 23rd, 2003, 02:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •