Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Behind the semantics
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* It may be only a temporary reprieve…
By avoiding the fundamental constitutional question, last week’s Illinois Supreme Court 6-1 ruling against the state’s “Amazon tax” has left the controversial issue of Internet sales taxes up to Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court to sort things out once and for all.
In other words: Don’t expect those Internet marketers that fled the state when the law was enacted two years ago to be flocking back anytime soon.
The state’s highest court found Illinois’ Internet sales tax void and unenforceable because it conflicts with a federal law that temporarily blocked new state or federal taxes aimed at online retailers or Internet providers, the first court in the country to take that stance. But others say a conflict with federal law merely makes the state tax unenforceable.
For unstated reasons, the court did not address a lower court ruling that found the state tax in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
* Courts usually try to keep their opinions narrow, so that may be why the Supremes acted the way they did. But the that federal law sunsets in a year. So, we end up right back where we started…
All of the justices sided with Burke except Justice Lloyd Karmeier, who wrote the dissenting opinions.
The court avoided the larger constitutional question of whether the tax is allowable under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Karmeier argued that this was a mistake because he said that the issues will likely end up in court again.
“A new commerce clause challenge is certain to follow. A year from now we could therefore find ourselves in precisely the same position we are in today, facing the same commerce clause challenge brought by and against the very same litigants. The delay will have accomplished nothing. The issue has been fully briefed and argued and is ripe for a decision now. We should make one,” he wrote
So, if Congress fails to act, there would be no controlling federal statute to prohibit the state law, so it could take effect again.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 21, 13 @ 12:51 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Behind the semantics
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Nobody? Not one comment? Hello? This may be a first.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 21, 13 @ 4:08 pm
I know I hadn’t commmented because this ruling is like a weather report on the TV;
It’s a sunny forcast, but it could rain, so when it rains, it will rain, but for now, it’s sunny.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 21, 13 @ 4:34 pm
I am a blogger/affiliate/internet marketer and am also an attorney. I found the failure to address the constitutional issue disappointing. Not necessarily surprising, as you are correct that courts like to make the narrowest possible ruling, but it would have been nice to have had a definitive decision on the matter. I imagine the State will likely seek cert, although perhaps they will just wait and see what happens with the federal law. I have seen the PMA calling on companies to reinstate affiliates, but I doubt that will happen given the present uncertainty. Meanwhile, I recently passed on purchasing a website that I was highly interested in because it turned out that its primary income source was from Amazon. Occasionally I consider incorporating in Wisconsin in order to get my Amazon and other accounts back, but I haven’t quite wanted to make that leap. I lost income from those sources, but it wasn’t my primary income source and I managed to make up a fair amount of the losses in traditional advertising sales. Still, it would be nice to get all of this settled and hopefully be able to regain my accounts.
Comment by CC Monday, Oct 21, 13 @ 5:06 pm