As a seller on eBay, I'm wondering about this also. I have had a buisness before and had to collect, and send in, taxes to the Franchise Tax board. Not as painfull to accomplish as income taxes, but still a pain for a small home buisness to deal with.

So now all the California "related" businesses (or whatever they call them) are going to STOP PAYING INCOME TAXES because they're moving out of the state, or will go on to different businesses. If the Amazon law was supposed to generate $150 million in sales tax (which is NOT going to happen now due to them cutting ties), and the affiliated businesses used to pay $150 million in sales/income tax, then the only winners in this situation are Best Buy and Target! California ends up with less money, less business, and fewer jobs. Stupid stupid Democrat financial philosophy. Raising taxes does NOT always equal more money overall.

Here's an idea Best Buy and Target: Lower your goddamn ridiculous full-manufacturer's suggested retail prices and I'll certainly be willing to pay a few extra bucks for the convenience of going to your store to pick it up. I will never, ever pay $29.99 for a blu-ray.

Here's what stinks imo in terms of Amazon is doing.

They've cut off the affiliates, screwing them over. But they still have offices here in California. So it changes nothing. They remain, under this law, required to collect taxes because even without the affiliates they have a presence in California. So cutting off the affiliates is a pure publicity move. They're trying to gain sympathy by saying, "Look at all these poor people we had to cut off to avoid the headache of this law," but in reality doing so avoids nothing. That's a pretty sh*tty thing to do to the affiliates.

No, it is my understanding that Amazon does not have offices in California. They have companies they work with that are based in California (i.e. the manufacturer of the Kindle) but no offices themselves.

If you go on Amazon right now, you STILL don't have to pay sales tax in California.

The California law seeks to (unconstitutionally) circumvent a 1992 US Supreme Court ruling on this issue. What Amazon has done is say, if you're going to try and enforce this, then we have the right to circumvent the unconstitutional law.

I think it's a business move and an effort to protest a misguided law. The publicity is secondary.

They do have offices here. My friend just got offered (and perhaps presciently turned down) a job at one. And, even by the Quill v. North Dakota, any office is enough to count as a Nexus.

California's new definition of a Nexus may indeed be too broad. The old definition probably wasn't broad enough. But the fact is, if Amazon is not currently collecting sales tax, while having offices in California, they are ignoring the law, not circumventing it, and doing so at the expense of many small businesses just to push their own agenda. I find that distasteful.

Was your friend's office for Amazon, or a subsidiary? According to the NY Times:

"The law had said that an online retailer needed to collect taxes on purchases if it had a physical presence, or a nexus, in a particular state. Any retailer with an office or warehouse qualified. Amazon had no such facility in California."

If your friend turned down a job at an Amazon office in California then Amazon should have been charging sales tax in California BEFORE the law was passed. I have a feeling that your friend was offered something else:

"California’s new law goes further by including related companies, or subsidiaries in its definition of a nexus. Several Amazon subsidiaries have offices in California like A9, which works on search technology, and Lab126, which designs Kindle digital book readers."

There are no Amazon offices in California:

http://www.amazon.com/Locations-Care...node=239366011

Plus, if you go to the jobs section and perform a search for all of California, all jobs are listed in Cupertino, CA... for the aforementioned Lab126 company.

Yes, it's a subsidiary. What's your point? The new law includes such subsidiaries (source). So unless they're shutting A9 (and A to Z, which is where my friend was offered), then cutting off the affiliates does nothing to change their status under the new law and they're screwing the affiliates over for now reason other than to grab attention. So my point stands.

I'm reading this thusly.

Amazon knows the affiliates are indefensible, but the subsidiaries are a new wrinkle that they can attempt to counter in court.

I'm interested to see how this shakes out. Can Amazon just up and move entirely, or is CA kind of necessary, as much of the talent is here?

I'm still curious, as we descend into the technical requirements of following this new law, if anybody here has ever reported and paid the use tax on Amazon purchases as required on line 95 of the 540?

Not I.