ILNews

Simon sues state over Amazon sales tax exemption

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion Superior lawsuit is accusing Indiana of violating the state constitution by not collecting sales taxes from Amazon.com Inc.

On behalf of Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group Inc., law firm Cohen & Malad filed the suit Thursday against the Indiana Department of Revenue in an attempt to force the state to collect sales taxes from the online operations. The mall powerhouse claims the state's "illegal and unconstitutional" decision to exempt Amazon from sales-tax collection gives the giant online retailer "an unfair advantage in the market."

Specifically, the suit asks the court to mandate that the state’s revenue department issue an assessment to Amazon for unpaid gross retail taxes and use taxes, as well as interest and penalties. One of the counts alleges not collecting those taxes amounts to a violation of Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution that prohibits disparate treatment of citizens – in this case, Amazon’s online operations here versus the other merchants required to pay the taxes.

“Defendants have failed and refused to comply with their statutory duties to issue such assessments, despite demand,” the suit says. “Their failure, without legislative authority, illegally and unconstitutionally exempts Amazon from the obligations to collect Indiana Gross Retail Tax and Use Tax, despite the fact that Amazon sells hundreds of millions of dollars of taxable goods to Indiana residents with many of those sales taking place wholly within Indiana every year.”

The suit cites a study by professors at the University of Tennessee that estimates Indiana will forego about $195 million in revenue in 2012 alone by failing to compel out-of-state retailers like Amazon to collect sales taxes.

Simon earlier had requested that the state begin collecting sales taxes on purchases made from within the state's boundaries on Amazon.com. Online retailers typically are required to collect sales taxes on purchases from within states where they have a physical presence, but Indiana has not forced the issue with Amazon.

The decision by Indiana officials to take a kid-glove approach was an important factor in Amazon's decision to open four local distribution centers that employ thousands of Hoosiers. Of course, traditional retailers employ many thousands more.

Amazon has faced pressure in most of the states where it operates to collect sales tax, particularly as state coffers dried up during the recession. Some states have been hit with lawsuits, as well as threats that distribution centers would be removed from those locations.

To help lure Amazon to Indiana, the state in 2007 repealed a law requiring companies that didn’t maintain a place of business in the state — but had affiliated locations — to get a retail merchant’s certificate, subjecting them to the same tax-collection duties as brick-and-mortar shops. Amazon now has three distribution centers in the state and has announced plans to open a fourth.

Gov. Mitch Daniels’ administration — as well as Amazon officials — have advocated a federal solution to address the issue. Key fiscal leader Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, has been at the forefront of efforts to get a federal law requiring online sales-tax collections. Kenley, who spent two days in Washington, D.C., this week discussing the matter with federal lawmakers, is among those who are hopeful the issue could get traction in Congress this year.

Both House and Senate bills have been filed, and a bipartisan group of senators, including Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin and Wyoming Republican Mike Enzi, intend to introduce a bill on the issue early next week, Kenley said. They’re also tentatively planning a Nov. 30 hearing on the issue.

Kenley said Friday that he’s not inclined to support a state solution, which Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, said he intends to introduce during the next legislative session. Broden had tried to insert a similar measure into the budget bill during the 2010 session.

Aside from what happens at the state legislative and Congressional levels, the issue could ultimately play out in courtrooms and pave the way for the Supreme Court of the United States to revisit this sales tax issue as it involves online operations. In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), the court held that a business must have a physical presence in a state for that state to require it to collect sales tax. Although it didn’t specifically address the Internet at that time, the holding effectively has barred states from collecting sales taxes from most online operations.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • interesting story and suit
    I dont see any standing, first off. How does any one person have standing to sue over tax collection policy that is an executive function. Also: people dont just avoid malls now because of the sales tax issue, they avoid them because they are symbols of reckless capitalist over development of former farmlands that now are reduced to concrete lots and cheap but gaudy dens of commodity idolatry. A little bit of sales tax wont slow the malls decline.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT