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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT