Fighting the Affiliate Tax in Mississippi 2011

As was the case last year, those of us involved with affiliate marketing in Mississippi must remain vigilant because the affiliate tax has been proposed again this year. Introduced by Representative Jessica Upshaw on January 4, 2011, House Bill 363 specifies that a “person soliciting remote sales through representatives in this state is subject to [the] use tax.” The bill, if enacted into law, would take effect July 1, 2011.

I have several problems with this bill that I elaborated on last year when I wrote about Senate Bill 2927 which ultimately died in committee. In short, though, this bill would define my work as an affiliate marketer as equivalent to owning a physical storefront. For example, if I am an affiliate or associate of an Internet retailer like Amazon and put an Amazon ad on my website then this bill equates my association with Amazon as meeting the “nexus,” or physical presence, requirement for state sales tax purposes. The result of my association is that Amazon would then be required to collect sales taxes for orders made by Mississippi residents. Let me state this again because the implications are staggering: my ad on my website (which could be likened to a billboard along a highway) means that an out-of-state entity (any retailer I’m associated with via an affiliate marketing relationship) has to collect sales taxes on every order coming from Mississippi.

As I see things, HB 363 is fraught with both legal and practical problems. For starters, the Supreme Court in 1992 (Quill Corp. v. North Dakota) declared that electronic associations do not meet the nexus (physical presence) requirement for states to collect sales tax from out-of-state business entities selling to residents of their state. From a personal point of view, this bill could put me ( out of business by drying up our primary sources of revenue. When other states have adopted legislation similar to HB 363, Amazon and many other online retailers have simply severed their affiliate relationships within those states. Put another way, these online retailers simply dropped their affiliates in those states so they did not meet the new requirement. The unintended result: (1) little or no new sales tax collections and (2) more unemployment as people like me (plus employees) who depend on affiliate marketing revenue had to relocate their businesses to other states or find a different line of work.

Bottom line: I oppose HB 363 because it Continue reading “Fighting the Affiliate Tax in Mississippi 2011”

Fighting the Affiliate Tax in Mississippi

On January 18, 2010, Senator Tommy A. Gollott of Mississippi Senate District 50 introduced SB2927 (pdf link or here for current status) which attempts to redefine the “nexus requirement” for online or “remote” sales to include affiliate web sites such as mine (like I quote from this bill:

A person is presumed to be soliciting or transacting business by an independent contractor, agent, or other representative if the person enters into an agreement with a resident of this state under which the resident, for a commission or other consideration, directly or indirectly refers potential customers, whether by a link on an Internet Web site or otherwise, to the person. This presumption may be rebutted by proof that the resident with whom the person has an agreement did not engaged in any solicitation in the state on behalf of the person that would satisfy the nexus requirement of the United States Constitution;

Obviously this bill is of great concern to me since I make my living through “link[s] on an Internet Web site” that are compensated via “a commission or other consideration” for referring customers. (The attempt to label affiliate relationships as constituting a nexus requirement has been called the Amazon Tax or the Affiliate Tax by many.) I have two major problems with the way this bill is written including the following:

1. The “nexus requirement” of affiliates is wrong since this issue was clarified in 1992 by the U.S. Supreme Court in their Quill Corp. v. North Dakota to mean a substantial physical presence.

Nexus is defined as “a means of connection”. The Quill decision addressed a dispute between the State of North Dakota and office supply retailer, Quill Corporation, over a computer software program and the collection of sales taxes. North Dakota argued that the computer program created a nexus or physical presence but the U.S. Supreme Court determined that it did not constitute the required physical nexus and so the state could not require Quill to collect sales taxes (Quill had no retail establishments or sales force in North Dakota.)

With the Quill decision in mind, how does an affiliate relationship via Internet links constitute a physical presence that could pass this Supreme Court test? An affiliate agreement is virtual which means it is even less of a physical presence than one could argue floppy disks were in 1992. Does my electronic relationship with out of state online retailers meet the nexus requirement? In my opinion it does not even come close.

In many ways an affiliate relationship with a merchant could be compared to a sign company renting billboard space along the highway. The merchant does not own the signs just as the merchant does not own my or any affiliate’s website. The merchant pays the sign company to display their message just as the merchant pays me to promote theirs. How does such an arrangement constitute nexus?

2. New York and North Carolina passed similar tax schemes and hurt small businesses (and ultimately their tax base).

The attempt by two states to apply sales taxes to Internet or “remote” sales were somewhat successful; however, the consequences were disastrous for many small businesses. When New York and North Carolina passed such taxes, the result was the massive removal of affiliates from those states by Amazon and other online retailers. In short, many online retailers simply removed their New York and North Carolina affiliates and thus, overnight, eliminated this supposed “nexus requirement”. The dismal results in these two states were these: (1) still no collection of sales taxes in those states because these online retailers had no affiliates in those states, and (2) substantial loss of income for many Internet businesses that relied on Amazon and other affiliate income to stay in business. Needless to say, the bottom line for these states were lost jobs as many entrepreneurs saw their incomes decimated. Of course lower business incomes means more layoffs, fewer new employees are hired, and a reduction in income and payroll tax collections.

There are tens of thousands of affiliates in other states and even other countries that are more than willing to pick up the slack for those who saw their relationships suddenly severed. Simply put, the law does not guarantee that sales taxes will be collected but it does mean that state’s affiliates will probably be dropped. Do we want this for Mississippi? Certainly not. (Amazon has also sued New York over this tax feeling it violates federal law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions. also sued New York challenging the constitutionality of this law.)

Now What?

I don’t want to just point out problems and not offer solutions. I know the states are losing sales tax revenues due to Internet sales. I think, however, attempting to link online affiliate relationships as equal to a “substantial physical presence” is the wrong way to address this problem. It is shortsighted and likely to backfire due to many unintended consequences.

For Mississippi, I believe we can pursue Continue reading “Fighting the Affiliate Tax in Mississippi”