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 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 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.



  • 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

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?