Results 1 to 12 of 12
April 10th, 2009, 06:06 AM #1SB806 Senate File No.599
The bill has moved another step. It has cleared the LCO review step. It now has Senate file no. 599 ( http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/FC/2009SB...R000599-FC.htm )
Next major step is to Senate for vote. Voting is done in order of presentation (by file no.) and I believe there there is a delay between the the time it is presented to Senate and the actual vote (I think 3 days). Not sure what file number they are up to. If it passes Senate it will move to Representative.
Still not over but be sure you are preparing for possibility of passing. I am sure most of us hit by the NY version last year are willing to answer questions.
April 10th, 2009, 10:15 AM #2
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a state may require a company engaged in interstate commerce to collect taxes on its behalf if the tax is “applied to an activity with substantial nexus with the taxing state, is fairly apportioned, does not discriminate against interstate commerce, and is fairly related to the services provided by the state” (Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 279 (1977)).
The Court has ruled that a company does not have the required nexus if it has no physical presence in a state and its only connection with it is to solicit business there through catalogs, flyers, advertisements in national publications, or phone calls and to fulfill orders by delivering merchandise to customers by mail or common carrier (Quill Corp v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992); National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 (1967)). But the Court has also found that the physical presence requirement is met if an out-of-state company has contracts with state residents who, for a sales commission or other compensation, solicit orders on its behalf (Scripto v. Carson, 362 U.S. 207 (1960)).
New York State Court Decision
Amazon.com filed suit against a 2008 New York law that is similar to this bill, alleging that New York's law violates (1) the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause by taxing out-of-state entities that have no substantial nexus with New York, (2) the U.S. and New York constitutions' due process clauses by effectively creating an irrebuttable presumption of “solicitation” and being overly broad, and (3) both constitutions' equal protection clauses by intentionally targeting Amazon. The New York court dismissed all three complaints on the grounds that, even if all Amazon's alleged facts are accepted as true, “there is no basis on which the company can prevail.” (Amazon.com LLC v. New York State Department of Tax and Finance, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Eileen Bransten, J., Index No. 601247/08, 2009 NY Slip Op. 29007; 2009 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 28, January 12, 2009.) Amazon appealed the decision to the New York Court of Appeals on February 27, 2009.
From the Bill ..OpA! Giasou Ti kanies!
April 15th, 2009, 09:02 AM #3
- Join Date
- June 15th, 2005
I wrote my senator and got a reply back. She's opposed to this bill. if you live in CT, lets continue to get the word out to our representatives and lets be heard!
April 15th, 2009, 11:35 AM #4
It is ready for vote and on the schedule. They vote in the same order bills are received so any day now, it's listed about halfway down list of bills.
Good to hear there is some opposition.
April 15th, 2009, 11:53 AM #5
I also wrote, but I didnt get any response back
OpA! Giasou Ti kanies!
April 15th, 2009, 11:11 PM #6
- Join Date
- June 15th, 2005
I wrote by regular mail..didn't hear back....so I went back to my local reps websites and emailed them directly. heard back from Senator Toni Boucher and she said she was opposed.
i think at this point, it's worth getting in touch with them any way we can until we get a response. i'm trying to get the word out to every ct affiliate, and program i know in CT to write as much as they can. maybe we need to put together a CT affiliate tea party, or something. i'm down. maybe ny affiliates can join us too.
April 18th, 2009, 01:35 PM #7Silver_LotusGuestI've written to my reps
haven't heard back yet
April 23rd, 2009, 02:42 PM #8
Got a Response back from Sen Duff --
But not exactly sure what it means in regards to the bill ..
What do ya think of the following line "I've consistently voted against tax increases during my legislative career and don't want to proceed down that road this year. "OpA! Giasou Ti kanies!
April 23rd, 2009, 02:52 PM #9
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
> "I've consistently voted against tax increases during my legislative career and don't want to proceed down that road this year." <
This response is not meaningful, since this is not a tax-increase bill, but only an "enforcement measure." It imposes no new taxes; it simply modifies the way the existing taxes are collected (to reduce tax evasion by state residents, it imposes a burden on out-of-state retailers to compute, collect, report, and remit the taxes).
The "no tax increase" response is probably boilerplate; it doesn't predict his vote on this bill, since he could later defend a "yes" vote by noting that this was not a "tax increase."
I assume that he's also opposed to creating unfair burdens on small businesses (in or out of state), and that he doesn't want to drive in-state small businesses to other states. But again, that begs the question of whether he believes this bill would do those things. I'm sure that all supporters of these bills will argue that any burden is insignificant (and removes an "unfair advantage"), and that any impact on small businesses will be very slight. Remember, you don't need any facts to make these arguments.
The facts that matter: Hundreds of merchants terminated their advertising relationships with New York businesses (web publishers) when New York enacted its law, causing New York to lose an indeterminable amount of income tax revenue. And Amazon is already re-structuring its affiliate program so that it need not collect sales tax in states where it passes, so most of the increased sales-tax revenue in New York won't be collected by other states. If your state enacts this law, then it will lose more income tax revenue than it collects in additional sales tax revenue.
You've received no meaningful response from your representative.
April 23rd, 2009, 03:07 PM #10Originally Posted by markwelch
Blanket email ...
The Bill is getting near the Top of the Calendar List (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/cln/s/200...423R00-CLN.htm)..
So we will see soon what happens ...OpA! Giasou Ti kanies!
April 30th, 2009, 04:51 PM #11
Something happened ...
"4/29/2009 Moved to Foot of the Calendar, Senate "OpA! Giasou Ti kanies!
March 24th, 2010, 08:30 PM #12
- Join Date
- March 24th, 2010
I just posted an update and call to action on a new post. Please please get involved now, I mean now as in 12 midnight or 8am in the morning. Read my post or PM me to help out and spread the word to as many CT affiliates as possible.
By prix in forum Commission Junction - CJReplies: 8Last Post: April 19th, 2009, 12:45 PM
By Haiko de Poel, Jr. in forum Connecticut Affiliate TaxReplies: 4Last Post: March 25th, 2009, 05:43 PM
By Geno Prussakov in forum AM NavigatorReplies: 7Last Post: May 27th, 2007, 01:06 PM