This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
A fact from South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 February 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Amazon and sales tax: Okay I will say that given this [1] it's probably not best to say Amazon voluntarily did this; we can say Amazon has tried to avoid collecting sales tax but since plans to collect sales tax in all 45 states that have such by April 2017. [2] This is still considered voluntary but after trying to fight courts.
The removal of the DMA case part is inappropriate. It is necessary that opinions from that case shaped how South Dakota (and several other states) followed suit based on what Kennedy said.
The $23B is a reported estimate. If you are talking the GAO, I come to this [3] that gives a range from $8.5 to 14B. We can include that, but the key is that $23B is what the states are pinning the case on, which is not that far outside of the GAO estimates. I've clarified that wording in the lede so it's not a seemingly factual number. --Masem (t) 01:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the DMA case should be included as relevant background. As for whether Amazon has 100% voluntarily started collecting state sales taxes, it may be true in a strict sense, but when Amazon opened fulfillment centers in Florida (which I recall from local news), they had to start collecting sales tax on orders delivered within the state. As one local news article says:
"Collecting sales tax comes as a result of Amazon establishing warehouses in Hillsborough and Polk counties for processing and shipping orders. Until now, the Seattle-based retailer hasn't had to collect sales tax from buyers in Florida because it didn't have a physical presence in the state.
Amazon spokesman Ty Rogers said Wednesday the company will be required to collect sales tax in Florida starting May 1 but wouldn't elaborate on the timing. The warehouses, known as fulfillment centers, aren't expected to start processing orders until the holiday shopping season later this year.
'As soon as they start hiring employees based in Florida, they are going to be triggering a lot of regulatory legal filings that are going to be creating physical nexus for them,' said John Fleming, a spokesman for the Florida Retail Federation."
"in 2017 states had lost over US$13 billion in taxes they could not collect". If this is a direct quote, the citation needs to be listed and quoted properly. As is, the argument doesnt hold water. You can't "lose" something you were not legally allowed to collect, any more than I "lost" money Bezos was under no obligation to give me.104.51.46.71 (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right before that it is inline attributed to a GAO repot, and which can be found by quickly searching the body (Ref 15). This is not a quote, but a summary of the GAO findings, and ledes do not need citations for information like this as long as it is sourced in the body. --Masem (t) 04:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
