Approving a landmark legislative compromise that creates jobs and ensures that online retailers do not receive an unfair tax advantage over brick-and-mortar businesses, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. Friday signed a bill that requires Amazon and other internet retailers to collect sales taxes starting next year.
AB 155 (Calderon) paves the way for a nationwide solution by giving internet retailers time to push for passage of a federal bill that mirrors California's legislation.
"A prolonged, costly ballot battle is a benefit to no one," Brown said. "This landmark legislation not only levels the playing field between online retailers and California's brick-and-mortar businesses, it will also create tens of thousands of jobs and inject hundreds of millions of dollars back into critical services like education and public safety in future years. It's time for Washington to follow our lead and forge a bipartisan national solution."
AB X1 28, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in June as part of the budget, affirmed that out-of-state online retailers like Amazon must collect sales tax. Today's compromise legislation delays those tax collection obligations to give online companies time to seek an alternative national solution. In exchange for the additional window of time the bill provides, Amazon has pledged to create at least 10,000 full-time jobs and hire 25,000 seasonal employees in California by the end of 2015. This will generate an estimated half billion dollars of capital investment in California. Amazon will also drop its referendum challenge to AB X1 28.
"Amazon is grateful for Governor Brown's support of this bill and enactment of federal legislation, and we look forward to creating thousands of jobs in California," said Paul Misener, Vice President of Global Public Policy for Amazon.
If Congress fails to act on nationwide legislation, online sales tax collection in California will begin September 15, 2012.
The Board of Equalization has estimated that California loses over $1 billion annually from uncollected use taxes. Their analysis also shows that California currently loses at least $83 million annually in uncollected state and local use tax attributed to Amazon's sales in California.
Today's compromise was supported by thousands of businesses, including Towne Center Books in Pleasanton, Barnes & Noble, Best Buy, Crate & Barrel, Daniel's Jewelers, Gap, Home Depot, J.C. Penney Company, Lowe's, Safeway, Sears, Target, Wal-Mart, Westfield Group and many other small and medium sized businesses across California.
"This is a major victory for brick-and-mortar businesses in this state," said California Retailers Association President and CEO Bill Dombrowski. "We thank Governor Jerry Brown and the leaders in the California State Legislature who have demonstrated their commitment to our businesses by passing and signing e-fairness into law."
"Amazon's concession to finally begin collecting sales tax in California is a groundbreaking moment that sends a strong message to Washington that it is time to stop giving special treatment to a select few," he added. "All retailers deserve the chance to compete, grow and create jobs on a level playing field, without government picking winners and losers."
Comments
Pleasanton Heights
on Sep 23, 2011 at 10:50 pm
on Sep 23, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Good news. Soon online retailers will loose the edge they had over physical book store. How will the online retailers keep their winning ways.
What will be their next move?
Web Link
Registered user
Val Vista
on Sep 27, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Registered user
on Sep 27, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Remarkable how short-sighted and dense our governor is. Does he really think that making the consumers pay 9% more for online sales will BRING BACK the retailers that have already died or that it will somehow spur the economy?
The only time you should impose a TAX on a purchase is if you're trying to discourage its usage (i.e. alcohol, tobacco, etc.). So what is Moonbeam trying to discourage now... reading?
Amazon (and other online retailers) won based on selection, convenience, and pricing. Maybe local businesses could compete cost-wise if we'd lower the minimum wage... This is merely another way to try and increase state coffers to pay for failed social programs.
Highland Oaks
on Sep 27, 2011 at 4:08 pm
on Sep 27, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Parent of Two,
"selection, convenience, and pricing"
Spot on.
Mike
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 27, 2011 at 9:35 pm
on Sep 27, 2011 at 9:35 pm
I must be missing something. Are you guys saying there shouldn't be sales taxes for anyone (except "i.e. alcohol, tobacco, etc."). Don't the same arguments apply to income and property taxes? Why should Barnes and Noble and Best Buy have to charge sales tax but Amazon not? I don't get the point here.
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 27, 2011 at 10:37 pm
on Sep 27, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Partiot - I'd have to agree. While I enjoy the 10% discount of paying online, it hardly seems fair to give a company out of state a competitive advantage over those that exist in state and employee state workers.
The person mentions that Amazon wins in pricing - that is fairly easy when you have an immediate 10% lower rate than an in-state competition.
So let everyone compete on an even playing field. Amazon will be ok and maybe more people will buy local.
Parkside
on Sep 28, 2011 at 9:27 am
on Sep 28, 2011 at 9:27 am
Since Amazon still has more purchasing power than smaller establishments, they can still undercut prices and provide more selection compared to other retailers. Size matters.
Additionally, if they continue to ship most items for free, they win the convenience factor as well.
Watch for a run on sales at Amazon prior to the Sept 2012 tax imposition. Short term, it'll be a big win for Amazon and consumers. Longer term, Amazon will still retain a large market share for the reasons stated above, despite the govts attempts at imposing 'fairness' to change a law they instituted in the first place.
Foothill High School
on Sep 28, 2011 at 9:46 am
on Sep 28, 2011 at 9:46 am
To "Parent of Two". It seems to me that you are the one who is "short-sighted and dense". How is bringing revenue to this state bad?
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 28, 2011 at 9:48 am
on Sep 28, 2011 at 9:48 am
"despite the govts attempts at imposing 'fairness' to change a law they instituted in the first place."
Seems to me like the government screwed up in the first place by giving them the unfair advantage. Fixing that seems like the right thing to do. I don't get why Walmart or Target has to charge sales tax but Amazon doesn't.
Registered user
Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 28, 2011 at 10:54 am
Registered user
on Sep 28, 2011 at 10:54 am
As you drive downtown, you don't see an Amazon sign anywhere in sight. You can't pop into the Amazon store next door when you make a grocery run on your way to pick up your kid from school. The idea of unfair advantages that online retailers have over brick and mortar stores is a mixed bag.
I haven't looked at the bill. I assume it is only for collecting sales tax on sales made by California affiliates of Amazon. Otherwise, how do they get around the nexus problem?
Ridgeview Commons
on Apr 25, 2017 at 2:31 pm
on Apr 25, 2017 at 2:31 pm
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?
Ridgeview Commons
on Apr 27, 2017 at 12:26 am
on Apr 27, 2017 at 12:26 am
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?