NY Sales Taxes Apply to Amazon and Overstock


The supreme court in NY ruled that Internet businesses should be taxed on an equal footing with brick-and-mortar businesses, which likely lead to a US Supreme Court challenge. Accounting Today reported that the NY Court of Appeals, ruled 4-1 on March 28, 2013 that Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman wrote for the majority against Amazon and Overstock’s appeals:

If a vendor is paying New York residents to actively solicit business in this state, there is no reason why that vendor should not shoulder the appropriate tax burden.

The lone vote in favor of Amazon and Overstock came from Judge Robert Smith who wrote:

The websites are not soliciting customers for Overstock and Amazon in the fashion of a local sales agent,... Of course the website owners solicit business for themselves; they encourage people to visit their websites, just as a newspaper owner would seek to boost circulation. But there is no basis for inferring that they are actively soliciting for the out-of-state retailers.

The New York State Commissioner of Taxation and Finance Thomas H. Mattox issued the following statement:

Today’s Court of Appeals Decision affirms New York State’s approach to ensure fair tax administration for both brick-and-mortar and Internet-based businesses. We commend the Court for recognizing the logical application of existing precedent to the 21st century economy.

Since being implemented, this law has resulted in the collection of roughly $500 million in State and local sales tax. This is equivalent to approximately $6.0 billion of taxable retail sales into New York that were previously made without the sales tax being collected.

Of course local governments are losing tax revenue from the Internet businesses, but the nexus of where the taxable transactions occur are critical. So if a NY resident purchases a book from Amazon where was the taxable transaction? Washington state where Amazon is headquartered? Or where the server is located in Georgia? Or where the book is shipped from in Texas?

There are no easy answer to these Internet tax issues, and it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court reacts.

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.


AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top