Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41
  1. #1
    Outsourced Program Manager kgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Near Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    110
    Arrow AB 153 - Introduced in CA on 1/18
    I've lost track of which round of this we're on, but here we go again...

    California Assembly Member Nancy Skinner (D-Berkley) reintroduced what they are calling "E-Fairness Legislation" but we all know this is the same old advertising tax aimed squarely at our industry.

    Her Press Release:
    January 18, 2011 - MEDIA ADVISORY: Assemblymember Nancy Skinner Introduces E-Fairness Legislation To Level The Playing Field For California Businesses

    Sacramento Bee Article:
    Capitol Alert: AM Alert: 'Amazon bill' is back

    Bill Text:
    AB 153 Assembly Bill - INTRODUCED

    BILL NUMBER: AB 153 INTRODUCED
    BILL TEXT


    INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Skinner

    JANUARY 18, 2011

    An act to amend Section 6203 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,
    relating to taxation.


    LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


    AB 153, as introduced, Skinner. State Board of Equalization:
    administration: retailer engaged in business in this state.
    The Sales and Use Tax Law imposes a tax on retailers measured by
    the gross receipts from the sale of tangible personal property sold
    at retail in this state, or on the storage, use, or other consumption
    in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a
    retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state,
    measured by sales price. That law defines a "retailer engaged in
    business in this state" to include retailers that engage in specified
    activities in this state and requires every retailer engaged in
    business in this state and making sales of tangible personal property
    for storage, use, or other consumption in this state to register
    with the State Board of Equalization and to collect the tax from the
    purchaser and remit it to the board.
    This bill would include in the definition of a retailer engaged in
    business in this state any retailer entering into agreements under
    which a person in this state, for a commission or other
    consideration, directly or indirectly refers potential purchasers,
    whether by an Internet-based link or an Internet Web site, or
    otherwise, to the retailer, provided the total cumulative sales price
    from all sales by the retailer to purchasers in this state that are
    referred pursuant to these agreements is in excess of $10,000 within
    the preceding 12 months, except as specified. This bill would further
    provide that a retailer entering specified agreements to purchase
    advertising is not a retailer engaged in business in this state.
    Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
    State-mandated local program: no.


    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

    SECTION 1. Section 6203 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is
    amended to read:
    6203. (a) Except as provided by Sections 6292 and 6293, every
    retailer engaged in business in this state and making sales of
    tangible personal property for storage, use, or other consumption in
    this state, not exempted under Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section
    6271) or Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6351), shall, at the time
    of making the sales or, if the storage, use, or other consumption of
    the tangible personal property is not then taxable hereunder, at the
    time the storage, use, or other consumption becomes taxable, collect
    the tax from the purchaser and give to the purchaser a receipt
    therefor in the manner and form prescribed by the board.
    (b) As respects leases constituting sales of tangible personal
    property, the tax shall be collected from the lessee at the time
    amounts are paid by the lessee under the lease.
    (c) "Retailer engaged in business in this state" as used in this
    section and Section 6202 means and includes any of the following:
    (1) Any retailer maintaining, occupying, or using, permanently or
    temporarily, directly or indirectly, or through a subsidiary, or
    agent, by whatever name called, an office, place of distribution,
    sales or sample room or place, warehouse or storage place, or other
    place of business.
    (2) Any retailer having any representative, agent, salesperson,
    canvasser, independent contractor, or solicitor operating in this
    state under the authority of the retailer or its subsidiary for the
    purpose of selling, delivering, installing, assembling, or the taking
    of orders for any tangible personal property.
    (3) As respects a lease, any retailer deriving rentals from a
    lease of tangible personal property situated in this state.
    (4) (A) Any retailer soliciting orders for tangible personal
    property by mail if the solicitations are substantial and recurring
    and if the retailer benefits from any banking, financing, debt
    collection, telecommunication, or marketing activities occurring in
    this state or benefits from the location in this state of authorized
    installation, servicing, or repair facilities.
    (B) This paragraph shall become operative upon the enactment of
    any congressional act that authorizes states to compel the collection
    of state sales and use taxes by out-of-state retailers.
    (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 refer potential
    purchasers of tangible personal property to the retailer, whether by
    an Internet-based link or an Internet Web site, or otherwise,
    provided that the total cumulative sales price from all of the
    retailer's sales, within the preceding 12 months, 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, 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.
    (5)
    (6) Notwithstanding Section 7262, a retailer specified
    in paragraph (4) above, and not specified in paragraph (1), (2), or
    (3) above, is a "retailer engaged in business in this state" for the
    purposes of this part and Part 1.5 (commencing with Section 7200)
    only.
    (d) (1) For purposes of this section, "engaged in business in this
    state" does not include the taking of orders from customers in this
    state through a computer telecommunications network located in this
    state which is not directly or indirectly owned by the retailer when
    the orders result from the electronic display of products on that
    same network. The exclusion provided by this subdivision shall apply
    only to a computer telecommunications network that consists
    substantially of online communications services other than the
    displaying and taking of orders for products.
    (2) This subdivision shall become inoperative upon the operative
    date of provisions of a congressional act that authorize states to
    compel the collection of state sales and use taxes by out-of-state
    retailers.
    (e) Except as provided in this subdivision, a retailer is not a
    "retailer engaged in business in this state" under paragraph (2) of
    subdivision (c) if that retailer's sole physical presence in this
    state is to engage in convention and trade show activities as
    described in Section 513(d)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code, and
    if the retailer, including any of his or her representatives, agents,
    salespersons, canvassers, independent contractors, or solicitors,
    does not engage in those convention and trade show activities for
    more than 15 days, in whole or in part, in this state during any
    12-month period and did not derive more than one hundred thousand
    dollars ($100,000) of net income from those activities in this state
    during the prior calendar year. Notwithstanding the preceding
    sentence, a retailer engaging in convention and trade show
    activities, as described in Section 513(d)(3)(A) of the Internal
    Revenue Code, is a "retailer engaged in business in this state," and
    is liable for collection of the applicable use tax, with respect to
    any sale of tangible personal property occurring at the convention
    and trade show activities and with respect to any sale of tangible
    personal property made pursuant to an order taken at or during those
    convention and trade show activities.
    (f) Any limitations created by this section upon the definition of
    "retailer engaged in business in this state" shall only apply for
    purposes of tax liability under this code. Nothing in this section is
    intended to affect or limit, in any way, civil liability or
    jurisdiction under Section 410.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
    Karen Garcia
    [URL=http://lab6media.com]Lab6 Media[/URL]
    Are you a content creator? A serial entrepreneur? New to the space or a long time player? We'd love to work with you!
    [URL=http://lab6media.com/clients/]Explore the affiliate programs we manage![/URL]

  2. #2
    Outsourced Program Manager TrishaLyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 24th, 2008
    Location
    San Leandro, CA
    Posts
    1,049
    I'm all for storming her Berkeley office... any other Bay Area affiliates want to join me?
    Trisha Lyn Fawver

    @TrishaLyn | My Managed Merchants

  3. #3
    Super Dawg Member Phil Kaufman aka AffiliateHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 22nd, 2007
    Location
    West Covina, CA
    Posts
    8,443
    LA Times Article California lawmaker pushes to tax online sales includes rebuttal from Rebecca Madigan:

    "Beyond direct Internet transactions, Amazon boosts its California sales by relying on a network of local website operators who earn commissions as affiliates by directing some of their traffic to the Seattle company. That network, critics claim, creates a basis to require Amazon to collect sales tax from all its California customers.

    Skinner's bill could put some of those small websites out of business, said Rebecca Madigan, a spokeswoman for 25,000 Amazon affiliates in California.

    "Out-of-state retailers will simply stop advertising on the California websites to avoid having to collect California sales tax," she said. "So, at the end of the day, California website advertising income is cut off, and the state doesn't collect sales tax revenue."
    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
    ABW Ambassador affninja's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 11th, 2005
    Location
    Nor-Cal
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by TrishaLyn View Post
    I'm all for storming her Berkeley office... any other Bay Area affiliates want to join me?
    I'm in.
    Your Ad Here.

  5. #5
    Outsourced Program Manager TrishaLyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 24th, 2008
    Location
    San Leandro, CA
    Posts
    1,049
    It kind of bugs me that they quote her as "a spokeswoman for 25,000 Amazon affiliates in California." and don't mention the PMA. But that might have been strategic since the article seems to focus on Amazon.
    Trisha Lyn Fawver

    @TrishaLyn | My Managed Merchants

  6. #6
    Member RebeccaMadiganPMA's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 17th, 2009
    Location
    Camarillo, CA
    Posts
    98
    It wasn't deliberate to exclude PMA, just their omission. I swear, at least our perspective got mentioned, which doesn't always happen, particularly in the mainstream press.

    Here's a good article, they interviewed me and totally get it (even thought this is an opinion piece and they didn't mention us, but that's okay by me, it's a great article). We're trying to make this about Skinner - definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results (I recall that from a Whitman attack ad):

    SACRAMENTO POLITICIANS WANT TO TAX YOUR INTERNET PURCHASES - FlashReport - Presented by Jon Fleischman
    Rebecca Madigan
    Executive Director | Performance Marketing Association
    o: 805.445.9700 (PST)

  7. #7
    ABW Ambassador isellstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 9th, 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,659
    Quote Originally Posted by RebeccaMadiganPMA View Post
    We're trying to make this about Skinner - definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results
    Agreed. I wish someone would do an investigative report on her finances. It is beginning to seem as though she is a little too determined and you have to wonder about her motivation.

    Then again, she could just be stupid.
    Merchants, any data you provide to Google Shopping should also be in your affiliate network datafeed. More data means more sales!

  8. #8
    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 isellstuff View Post
    Agreed. I wish someone would do an investigative report on her finances. It is beginning to seem as though she is a little too determined and you have to wonder about her motivation.

    Then again, she could just be stupid.
    More likely the recipient of serious contributions from California bookseller and other trade associations. One news report of her announcement of the bill:
    "Skinner was joined by representatives from Barnes and Noble, California Retailers Association, California Federation of Teachers, International Council of Shopping Centers, and the Northern California Independent Booksellers Association amongst others when she announced the legislation, according to a press release posted on her Web site on Tuesday."
    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]

  9. #9
    Outsourced Program Manager TrishaLyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 24th, 2008
    Location
    San Leandro, CA
    Posts
    1,049
    I don't get why the teachers are all for it. Maybe more of this money they think they're going to be getting will be going into teacher's salaries or school funding.
    Trisha Lyn Fawver

    @TrishaLyn | My Managed Merchants

  10. #10
    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 TrishaLyn View Post
    I don't get why the teachers are all for it. Maybe more of this money they think they're going to be getting will be going into teacher's salaries or school funding.
    Exactly.
    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]

  11. #11
    Life is Supposed to be Fun! Rexanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    12,360
    The bottom line is still "taxation without representation" which is against the constitution! Amazon (and every other online merchant) pays their individual state tax. Any other state trying to capitalize on out of state merchant's sales should be ashamed of their lack of understanding of constitutional law. Am I missing something?
    Peace,

    Rexanne

    Rexanne.com
    Loving Everyone's Child Creates Magic


  12. #12
    ABW Ambassador affninja's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 11th, 2005
    Location
    Nor-Cal
    Posts
    651
    It's my understanding that it is technically the customers that owe the tax -- sales tax if purchased in-state, or use-tax if purchased out of state. But given the extremely low compliance rate on self-reported use-tax (many don't even know they're supposed to report it), Sacramento is trying to put the burden on the retailers to collect the tax for them (just as in-state stores collect sales tax).

    So it really wouldn't be Amazon paying taxes -- just collecting money from CA customers and passing it back to the state. Of course they would face certain compliance costs.

    The constitutionality argument isn't so much the taxation-without-representation as it is the interpretation of nexus. The Supreme Court has ruled in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota that out-of-state retailers were not required to collect sales tax. Skinner argues that Amazon isn't an out-of-state retailer, because of their thousands of associates here in CA.

    If Sacramento just put a little effort into enforcing their existing use-tax reporting requirements, we wouldn't have to fight this every year. Of course they won't reach 100% compliance but that scenario will almost certainly generate more revenue for the state than this Amazon tax scheme.
    Your Ad Here.

  13. #13
    Outsourced Program Manager TrishaLyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 24th, 2008
    Location
    San Leandro, CA
    Posts
    1,049
    Quote Originally Posted by affninja View Post
    If Sacramento just put a little effort into enforcing their existing use-tax reporting requirements, we wouldn't have to fight this every year. Of course they won't reach 100% compliance but that scenario will almost certainly generate more revenue for the state than this Amazon tax scheme.
    Agreed, but I guess they think it's easier for businesses with the fear of more pressing legal ramifications to comply with something than the individual people, who they're lucky to get to do their taxes at all in some cases (and who clearly don't pay the use tax they're supposed to as it is).
    Last edited by TrishaLyn; January 24th, 2011 at 04:43 PM.
    Trisha Lyn Fawver

    @TrishaLyn | My Managed Merchants

  14. #14
    Speechless OTProf's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 4th, 2006
    Location
    Sunny SoCal
    Posts
    832
    Quote Originally Posted by affninja View Post
    It's my understanding that it is technically the customers that owe the tax -- sales tax if purchased in-state, or use-tax if purchased out of state. But given the extremely low compliance rate on self-reported use-tax (many don't even know they're supposed to report it), Sacramento is trying to put the burden on the retailers to collect the tax for them (just as in-state stores collect sales tax).

    So it really wouldn't be Amazon paying taxes -- just collecting money from CA customers and passing it back to the state. Of course they would face certain compliance costs.

    The constitutionality argument isn't so much the taxation-without-representation as it is the interpretation of nexus.
    This is my understanding as well. Is there any "mis[s]" in this understanding??

  15. #15
    .
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,973
    If I recall correctly, Amazon's position is that it will collect and remit sales tax for all states that request it, IF those states adopt a uniform system for determining, reporting, and remitting sales tax. Thus far, the "multi-state sales tax" efforts have gone nowhere, very slowly.

    Congress could fix this problem IN JUST ONE DAY by enacting enabling legislation (either authorizing the multi-state sales tax effort, or perhaps by requiring businesses engaged in interstate commerce to collect sales tax for each state where products are shipped). All such efforts have stalled because enacting such a law would bring lots of anger against Congress, with zero federal revenue to offset it. (There is widespread fear that any serious effort to enact federal enabling legislation would turn into a national sales tax, with the federal government siphoning even more money away from state sales tax collectors.)

    Amazon is unwilling to collect sales tax in states where it has no nexus, if other businesses are permitted to sell to consumers in those states without collecting sales tax; it argues that this is a fairness issue, and that if it is forced to collect sales tax while smaller online merchants are not, it will simply lose customers to those other businesses, and thus Amazon would lose revenue while the state collected no additional taxes.

    Amazon would NOT be burdened by the cost of computing, collecting, or remitting sales tax for the 40-some states where it doesn't currently collect sales tax (in fact, Amazon currently computes and collects sales tax for many of its Marketplace merchants who have "nexus" in those states). The real burden would be the loss of sales in favor of smaller companies who aren't being targeted and scapegoated by state legislators and tax collection agencies.

    Things are a little bit more complicated because it's likely that Amazon's business activities probably trigger "nexus" in some states (including California), without any "advertising-nexus laws," but I'm not aware of any state tax collectors seriously auditing or litigating this issue; such litigation might last a decade or more.

    In the end, what's actually happening is that state legislators are "grandstanding" by picking on Amazon and other large out-of-state retailers (politicians use this issue to seek support from in-state merchants, while out-of-state retailers have no clout). Apart from New York, whose "secret retroactive" enactment of the first "advertising-nexus" law effectively "trapped" Amazon and some other merchants, the few states which actually enact these laws have collected NO new sales tax revenue, but instead have LOST income-tax revenue from in-state businesses and individuals whose advertising contracts with Amazon and other out-of-state merchants were summarily terminated (to lawfully avoid any impact of these laws).

    What's scary is that even though I don't believe that California's Nancy Skinner and other legislators who re-introduce these bills each year actually believe they could collect any extra sales tax (Skinner drops her bill each year to prevent it from being heard in committee), it's entirely possible that in hurried back-room deals, absurd revenue promises might lead the "advertising nexus" language to be merged (again) into other legislation and enacted "accidentally," instantly wiping out hundreds of thousands of advertising contracts with California publishers.

    I spent some time this weekend examining some affiliate agreements (at SAS, CJ and GAN), and I was reminded of the "advertising-nexus tax law" issue each time I noticed individual merchants' provisions excluding New York, Rhode Island, and North Carolina participants.
    Last edited by markwelch; January 24th, 2011 at 08:24 PM.

  16. #16
    Moderator MichaelColey's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mansfield, TX
    Posts
    16,232
    Quote Originally Posted by markwelch View Post
    Things are a little bit more complicated because it's likely that Amazon's business activities probably trigger "nexus" in some states (including California), without any "advertising-nexus laws," but I'm not aware of any state tax collectors seriously auditing or litigating this issue; such litigation might last a decade or more.
    Texas is [1, 2], but I suspect that Amazon has properly segregated their business entities so that the nexus is avoided.
    Michael Coley
    Amazing-Bargains.com
     Affiliate Tips | Merchant Best Practices | Affiliate Friendly? | Couponing | CPA Networks? | ABW Tips | Activating Affiliates
    "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela

  17. #17
    ABW Ambassador affninja's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 11th, 2005
    Location
    Nor-Cal
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelColey View Post
    I suspect that Amazon has properly segregated their business entities so that the nexus is avoided.
    I saw an interesting article this morning about that very topic:

    Amazon.com fights sales taxes after getting other breaks
    Your Ad Here.

  18. #18
    ABW Ambassador affninja's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 11th, 2005
    Location
    Nor-Cal
    Posts
    651
    Overstock Will Terminate CA Affiliates
    And so goes the annual dance. Here is the text from Overstock's email I received last night:

    February 4, 2011


    Dear California Affiliate:

    Overstock.com values your advertising efforts, and hopes to continue our business relationship for years to come. However, we are writing to inform you the California state legislature has once again introduced bills which put our continued relationship in jeopardy.

    There are two bills that deserve your attention. The first is AB 153 and the second is AB 155. If either AB 153 or AB 155 passes in any form, Overstock.com will have to sever its relationships with all California Affiliates before either bill becomes law. Both bills are currently in committee, and may pass any day.

    AB 153 targets the affiliate relationship directly. This bill is similar to "affiliate nexus" bills we have seen in a few other states, modeled on the law first passed in New York. If AB 153 becomes law in California, it will mean that if we use your affiliate advertising services we would be required to collect sales taxes on all our California customer sales.

    AB 155 contains traditional affiliate nexus language, similar to AB 153, but also has a tattle-tale reporting requirement similar to a law passed in Colorado last year (which was recently enjoined due to constitutional concerns).

    We believe both bills are harmful to business, unconstitutional, and contrary to decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. Where similar bills have passed in other states we have summarily terminated our affiliate relationships in those states rather than submit to the unconstitutional burdens these laws impose.

    However, you can prevent this from happening in California. In many other states, the voices of local affiliate advertisers were heard. They pointed out to their legislators and governors that such legislation was unconstitutional, would be bad for local business and would not increase state revenues. Those bills were either not passed or vetoed by informed governors.

    You may want to make your voice heard on the matter. AB 153 was introduced by Assembly Member Nancy Skinner who may be contacted by telephone (916) 319-2014. AB 155 was introduced by Assembly Member Charles Calderon who may be contacted by telephone (916) 319-2058. However, it is more important that you contact your state representatives, and any others you personally know, and tell them they should not support these unwise bills. We encourage you to do this without delay.

    Again, Overstock.com values your advertising efforts and is hopeful that, like other states recently examining and rejecting this legislation, including California in previous years, will once-again see that these bills are bad for business and bad for California.

    Respectfully,


    Jonathan E. Johnson III
    President
    Overstock.com, Inc.
    Your Ad Here.

  19. #19
    Outsourced Program Manager TrishaLyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 24th, 2008
    Location
    San Leandro, CA
    Posts
    1,049
    Glad to see Overstock encouraging people to get on the grassroots bandwagon!
    Trisha Lyn Fawver

    @TrishaLyn | My Managed Merchants

  20. #20
    .
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,973
    The Sacramento Bee reports that AB 153 was "stalled" after today's hearing -- but then says that it's likely to be approved by the committee within a few weeks.

    Amazon sales tax bill stalls in Assembly committee

    Hotly contested legislation aimed at compelling Amazon and other on-line retailers to collect California sales taxes stalled Monday -- probably temporarily -- in the the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee.

    Committee chairman Henry Perea, a Fresno Democrat, placed the bill on the committee's "suspense file" after a lengthy hearing but the committee's majority Democrats appear from their comments to be ready to approve it. Perea said the vote may come within a few weeks.

    * * *

    Capitol Alert: Amazon sales tax bill stalls in Assembly committee
    The article contains some very sloppy reporting by a reporter (Dan Walters) who usually doesn't make such mistakes; he wrote "State tax officials say it could raise as much as a billion dollars a year if enacted," but in fact they had forecast the increase at "$114 million in 2011-12 and $234 million in 2012-13 [but warned that] If other firms were also to terminate their affiliate programs in response to the enactment of this bill, the potential revenue gain would be further diminished." -- quote directly from the BOE staff analysis, which was also quoted in the legislative staff analysis.)

    Remember, if the bill is enacted, Amazon (and dozens of other advertisers) will immediately terminate their advertising relationships with California web publishers (including me). It's quite likely that enactment of an "advertising-nexus" law would bring in only nominal new sales-tax collections, offset by a much larger loss of income tax revenue.
    Last edited by markwelch; March 8th, 2011 at 01:52 AM.

  21. #21
    ABW Ambassador affninja's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 11th, 2005
    Location
    Nor-Cal
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by markwelch View Post
    It's quite likely that enactment of an "advertising-nexus" law would bring in only nominal new sales-tax collections, offset by a much larger loss of income tax revenue.
    Mark, I was at the hearing yesterday. This is exactly the point we tried to make. I don't know how well it went over because the comments made by the committee members afterward still didn't register a complete understanding of the issue.

    It's very scary to have so little influence over an issue so important to your livelihood. So many false and misleading statements were made by the proponents of the bill, I wanted to stand up and scream. The number of people in support of the bill at the hearing FAR outnumbered the number of opponents. But they don't know what they're talking about.

    Still, the outcome (of the bill being assigned to "suspense") was expected. It means we have more time to try and influence the committee. We have to keep up the pressure.
    Your Ad Here.

  22. #22
    .
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,973
    First, thank you for taking the time (and spending the money) attend the hearing yesterday. (And thanks to the other web publishers and industry folks who attended the hearing.)

    I had noticed this weekend that the analyst's notes listed only a few opponents were listed for the bill; that's the trick they play by introducing the bill, then dropping it, then re-introducing it (and repeat) -- people like me get tired of the process and don't submit a new opposition letter. Then the professional lobbyists all get together and trade endorsements, so it looks like a huge list of supporters for the bill, and a short list of opponents.

    The problem here is that we're fighting over a diversion -- political pandering and games, not any genuine effort to solve the problem of "sales tax unfairness." It's not Amazon's fault, but instead state legislatures and Congress have refused to act to end "sales tax unfairness." The Advertising-Nexus language doesn't solve the problem; instead, it merely punishes out-of-state retailers (a little bit) while also punishing in-state publishers (a lot).

    I was surprised that the bill was actually heard. Perhaps they decided that because they'd worn out most of the opponents, they could orchestrate a hearing that would make the bill appear helpful. The ambiguity of the BOE analysis didn't help -- while one board member stated frankly in an op-ed piece that the law won't collect ANY sales tax, the actual staff analysis talks about how much the law would collect if the merchants don't all do exactly what we know they will do. (And then, even that absurd estimate is misquoted as $1 billion.)

    After wasting lots of time fighting this bill, I now need to focus my energy on planning for how I'll adapt when Amazon terminates its advertising relationship with me. I'm already floating in red ink, so losing 26% of my advertising revenue overnight isn't something I can afford.
    Last edited by markwelch; March 8th, 2011 at 11:56 AM.

  23. #23
    Member RebeccaMadiganPMA's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 17th, 2009
    Location
    Camarillo, CA
    Posts
    98
    Thanks Affninja for being at the hearing. I think as you said before we went in, if you didn't do anything and the bill passed, how would you feel? That's a very bad feeling.

    This is a game of politics, not logic. There was a hearing the week before, an informational hearing where the BOE and LAO presented their analysis, publicly stating they believe most merchants will terminate, the state will essentially see $0 in sales tax revenue, and likely a loss of income. They're bound by specific policies on what they can and can't publish in an analysis, but they were very public about their interpretation of situation.

    It felt bad, it sounded bad, but it wasn't all that unexpected. we've always assumed this committee will pass this bill, they have to because of the political makeup. We made it very hard for them though. Very, very hard. The proponents are pulling out the kitchen sink of excuses, further proof we're getting to them.

    it's a marathon, not a sprint. This bill, if ever passed, likely won't go into effect until Jan 2012, if not later.
    Rebecca Madigan
    Executive Director | Performance Marketing Association
    o: 805.445.9700 (PST)

  24. #24
    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 RebeccaMadiganPMA View Post
    it's a marathon, not a sprint. This bill, if ever passed, likely won't go into effect until Jan 2012, if not later.
    What about Gov. Brown? Any indication of his position? His words and actions have consistently been "No 'new' tax' unless the people vote for it". (He is pushing for ballot measure on other tax issues.)
    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]

  25. #25
    Member RebeccaMadiganPMA's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 17th, 2009
    Location
    Camarillo, CA
    Posts
    98
    That's a big question. This isn't in the budget (yet) and he's just acknowledged he'll miss his deadline so it could still go in. We don't want this in the budget or snuck in on the ballot in some way (it's hard enough for us to understand, imagine voters!). There's technical debate on whether or not this is a new tax. He's completely tied up with budget negotiations so we haven't been able to talk with him about this.
    Rebecca Madigan
    Executive Director | Performance Marketing Association
    o: 805.445.9700 (PST)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Not new - but may not have introduced myself.
    By inmobiz in forum Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 21st, 2008, 01:41 AM
  2. Not so new, but never introduced myself properly
    By violetdolor in forum Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 4th, 2007, 09:26 PM
  3. $2,153.96 Fall Sale Order!!!
    By Courtney Kelly in forum BettyMills
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 29th, 2007, 05:45 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
  •