Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Advocate mellie's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    1,925
    California Senate Passed Internet Sales Tax Bill
    Posted a little while ago, the Senate in California passed Internet sales tax legislation. It now moves on to the Assembly. Bill is fast tracked due to Emergency declaration by Governor.

    Assembly meets again on Monday.

    It is ABX8-8 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/...ed_sen_v98.pdf
    Melanie
    President - Affiliate Advocacy 2008 ShareaSale Performance Industry Advocate Award, 2009 Affiliate Summit Pinnacle Award - Affiliate Advocate
    Affiliate Advocacy
    NYAffiliateVoice Seery Writing

  2. #2
    .
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,973
    Interesting to see this "clarification" added to the text of the Advertising-Nexus Tax bill, defining the types of advertising agreements that would trigger the law's grasp:

    > "(C) An agreement under which a retailer purchases advertisements from a person or persons in this state, to be delivered on television, radio, in print, on the Internet, or by any other medium, is not an agreement described in subparagraph (A), unless the advertisement revenue paid to the person or persons in this state consists of commissions or other consideration that is based upon sales of tangible personal property." <

    There are two major changes in this extra paragraph.

    First, it expressly provides that this law applies to ALL forms of advertising, if compensation is based on sales. That means that print publications and TV channels that carry advertising where compensation based on sales WILL trigger the sales-tax collection requirement for those merchants. (It suggests that California would extend the law much more broadly than the other states that have adopted it.) This language might also bring in some lobbyists for traditional media publishers and out-of-state merchants who buy cost-per-sale advertising in these non-internet outlets.

    Second, it does add the "limitation" that compensation for advertising must be based on "sales of tangible personal property," which expressly negates the broader language ("or other consideration") in the first paragraph, so that California's law could not be interpreted to include other forms of advertising (CPM, CPC, CPL, etc.). I don't think any other state has attempted to enforce the broad language to apply to those other forms of advertising.

    None of these changes seek to resolve the fundamental consitutional issue, which is that the law seeks to impose "nexus" without any "physical presence," ignoring U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

    from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/...d_sen_v98.pdf:

    (5) (A) Any retailer entering into an agreement or agreements
    under which a person or persons in this state, for a commission
    or other consideration, directly or indirectly refers potential
    purchasers of tangible personal property to the retailer, whether
    by a link or an Internet Web site or otherwise, provided that the
    total cumulative sales price from all of the retailerís sales of
    tangible personal property to purchasers in this state that are
    referred pursuant to all of those agreements with a person or
    persons in this state, within the preceding 12 months, is in excess
    of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

    (B) This paragraph shall not apply if the retailer can
    demonstrate that the person in this state with whom the retailer
    has an agreement did not engage in referrals in the state on behalf
    of the retailer that would satisfy the requirements of the commerce
    clause of the United States Constitution.

    (C) An agreement under which a retailer purchases
    advertisements from a person or persons in this state, to be
    delivered on television, radio, in print, on the Internet, or by any
    other medium, is not an agreement described in subparagraph
    (A), unless the advertisement revenue paid to the person or persons
    in this state consists of commissions or other consideration that
    is based upon sales of tangible personal property.

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Join Date
    September 17th, 2007
    Posts
    31
    The bill says:
    ----
    within the preceding 12 months, is in excess
    of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
    -----

    Does the "preceding 12 months" mean retroactive effect, like NY did? So canceling affiliates now doesn't let the merchant off the hook?

  4. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: March 16th, 2014, 01:02 PM
  2. Senate Passes Online Sales Tax Bill
    By klance in forum Affiliate Tax Laws
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 31st, 2013, 12:55 PM
  3. Senate extends Internet tax moratorium
    By Disgruntled Worker in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 30th, 2004, 01:02 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
  •