United States: New York State Court Of Appeals Holds Click-Through Nexus Statute Is Facially Constitutional

The New York State Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, recently held that New York's click-through nexus statute that presumes sales tax nexus for certain online retailers does not facially violate the U.S. Constitution under either the Commerce or the Due Process Clauses.1

Background

In 2008, New York was the first state to enact click-through nexus legislation.2 The definition of "vendor" was amended to include Internet retailers that actively encourage Web site owners residing in New York to advertise for the Internet retailer in return for a commission on sales resulting from the followed link. A presumption of taxability exists if the Internet retailer generated more than $10,000 through these referrals during the last four quarterly sales tax periods. The presumption may be rebutted if the Web site owner did not engage in any solicitation in New York that would result in a finding of nexus under constitutional standards.3

The click-through nexus statute was challenged by two large Internet retailers, Amazon.com and Overstock.com. Amazon operates a retail Internet business and ships items to buyers worldwide, including buyers located in New York. Amazon does not own property in New York, maintain any New York offices or have employees who work or reside in the state. An "associates program" created by Amazon allows associates to maintain links to Amazon.com on their own Web sites and compensates the associates by paying them a percentage of the sales proceeds. Similar to Amazon, Overstock operates a retail Internet business and does not have any stores or employees in New York. Overstock has a program that allows "affiliates" to provide links to Overstock.com in exchange for a commission when the customer purchases merchandise from Overstock (though such program was suspended for those affiliates with New York addresses soon after the click-through nexus statute was enacted).

Two days after the statute was enacted, Amazon filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that the statute was unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Overstock filed a complaint alleging that the statute was unconstitutional because it violated the Commerce and Due Process Clauses. The trial court granted the state's motion to dismiss Amazon's complaint in its entirety.4 According to the trial court, Amazon's constitutional arguments were considered to be without merit. The same judge dismissed Overstock's complaint for the same reasons stated in the Amazon decision.5

On appeal, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed the portions of the orders that dismissed the facial constitutional challenges and declared the statute constitutional on its face.6 However, the Appellate Division reinstated the cases to determine whether the statute violated the Commerce or Due Process Clauses as applied to Amazon and Overstock. Following this decision, Amazon and Overstock entered into "stipulations of discontinuance withdrawing their as-applied constitutional challenges with prejudice, which were deemed the final judgments." Amazon and Overstock appealed their facial constitutional challenges to the New York State Court of Appeals.7

Statute Does Not Facially Violate Commerce Clause

The Court of Appeals held that the click-through nexus statute does not facially violate the Commerce Clause. As explained by the Court, the Commerce Clause prohibits states from imposing an undue burden on interstate commerce, but taxation is allowed if there is not an improper burden.8 A tax is upheld when it is: (i) applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing state; (ii) is fairly apportioned; (iii) does not discriminate against interstate commerce; and (iv) is fairly related to the services provided by the state.9 In this case, only the substantial nexus test was at issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court has considered the substantial nexus requirement in a line of widely-cited cases. In National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue,10 the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state could not impose use tax on an out-of-state mail-order business that did not have a physical presence in the state. In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota,11 the U.S. Supreme Court faced a similar issue concerning a mail-order business and retained the bright-line presence requirement from Bellas Hess for purposes of sales and use tax. While the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the physical presence requirement may be outdated because the world has changed dramatically since Quill was decided over 20 years ago, the Court of Appeals noted that this is an issue for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals was bound by the U.S. Supreme Court's binding precedent in Quill.

The Court of Appeals explained that following the Quill case, physical presence in the state itself does not need to be substantial, but must be more than a "slightest presence."12 According to the Court of Appeals, the presence requirement is satisfied if economic activities are performed in the state by the seller's employees or on its behalf.13

In determining that the click-through nexus statute did not violate the Commerce Clause, the Court of Appeals noted that there are parallels between a mail-order business and an Internet retailer because both types of businesses are able to conduct their operations in a state without having a physical presence. According to the Court of Appeals, the click-through nexus statute satisfies the substantial nexus requirement because the out-of-state taxpayer is deemed to establish an in-state sales force through its click-through agreement. The Court of Appeals explained that solicitation in a state that produces a significant amount of revenue qualifies as more than a "slightest presence" in the state. The out-of-state sellers are collecting taxes that are difficult to collect from the individual purchasers. Furthermore, there is no risk of taxing a sale multiple times. As explained by the Court of Appeals, "[t]he bottom line is that if a vendor is paying New York residents to actively solicit business in this State, there is no reason why that vendor should not shoulder the appropriate tax burden."

Statute Does Not Facially Violate Due Process Clause

The Court of Appeals also determined that the click-through nexus statute does not violate the Due Process Clause on its face. As explained in Quill, Commerce and Due Process Clause challenges are "closely related," but physical presence is not required to satisfy the Due Process Clause. For due process, the "focus is on whether a party has purposefully directed its activities toward the forum state and whether it is reasonable, based on the extent of a party's contacts with that state and the benefits derived from such access, to require it to collect taxes for that state."14

Amazon and Overstock argued that the click-through nexus statute violated the Due Process Clause because the "statutory presumption is irrational and essentially irrebuttable." In rejecting this argument, the Court of Appeals noted that the New York Web site owners are compensated for referrals that result in purchases. Due to this direct correlation between referrals and compensation, New York residents are encouraged to actively solicit customers in the state. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the presumption would seem less rational if the resident received "other consideration" that was not related to actual sales.15 However, because this decision was limited to a facial challenge, the fact that Amazon and Overstock could suggest a possible constitutional violation did not require that the statute be declared facially unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that the presumption cannot be rebutted because it would be very difficult to prove that none of the New York affiliates is soliciting customers for the retailer. In support of its decision, the Court of Appeals noted that the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has issued administrative guidance providing a method to rebut the presumption. The fact that it may be difficult for retailers to obtain the necessary information does not make the presumption impossible to rebut.

Commentary

The continuing click-through nexus litigation is being closely watched because of the proliferation of click-through nexus statutes that have been enacted and/or are being considered in many states.16 The fact that the highest court in New York has determined that the statute is constitutional on its face is significant and may support other states' efforts in enacting click-through nexus legislation.17 It is curious that Amazon and Overstock decided to stop pursuing their as-applied challenges. Other similarly situated taxpayers may make as-applied challenges to the New York statute, but the probability that these claims would be successful is not strong. While this decision is unfavorable precedent for taxpayers that want to facially challenge the constitutionality of click-through nexus legislation, we expect further challenges to these statutes currently applicable in other states, and potential consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a well-reasoned dissent, a justice contended that the click-through nexus statute is invalid under the Commerce Clause. The dissent explained that the New York Web sites are not the equivalent of sales agents soliciting business for Amazon and Overstock, but function as the media for Amazon and Overstock to advertise their products. As a result, "[t]he statute at issue here tries to turn advertising media into an in-state sales force through a presumption." The statute literally applies to all Internet advertising that links to a seller's Web site when there is an agreement for the referral of customers for a "commission or other consideration." The dissent argued that the "other consideration" language makes the statute unconstitutional, but the Department narrowly construes the statute to ignore this language. According to the dissent, this narrow construction should not save the statute. Also, the dissent explained that advertising was traditionally sold for a flat fee and sales agents were paid through commissions, but this has changed with the advent of the Internet. Today, it is efficient for the advertiser to compensate a Web site on the basis of its sales. The fact that the compensation is based on sales, in the view of the dissent, should not support a conclusion that the resident is functioning as an active sales agent.

Also in March, the U.S. Senate voted in favor of the concept of the Marketplace Fairness Act by a significant majority (75-to-24). The actual Marketplace Fairness Act18 was introduced in February and was offered as an amendment to the 2014 Budget Resolution by its sponsor, Senator Enzi. The insertion of the language of the Marketplace Fairness Act in the budget is symbolic since the Budget Resolution will not become law. By approving the amendment, however, the Senate's vote demonstrates widespread support for the concept of requiring remote sellers to collect sales tax and signals a growing trend in how the legislators view a vendor's tax collection obligation in today's marketplace.

Footnotes

1 Overstock.com, Inc. v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, New York State Court of Appeals, Nos. 33 and 34, March 28, 2013.

2 N.Y. TAX LAW § 1101(b)(8)(vi).

3 The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has released administrative guidance on the click-through nexus statute. TSB-M-08(3)S, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, May 8, 2008; TSB-M-08(3.1)S, New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, June 30, 2008. The second memorandum provides that the presumption can be rebutted if the seller satisfies two conditions: (i) the parties' contract prohibits the resident representative from engaging in any solicitation activities in the state on the seller's behalf, and (ii) each resident representative submits an annual, signed certification stating that the resident has not engaged in any of the proscribed solicitation.

4 Amazon.com LLC v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, 877 N.Y.S.2d 842 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009).

5 Overstock.com. Inc. v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, New York Supreme Court, No. 107581/08, Jan. 12, 2009.

6 Amazon.com, LLC v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, 913 N.Y.S.2d 129 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Note that the Amazon and Overstock cases were combined on appeal.

7 Because Amazon and Overstock decided to forego their as-applied challenges, the Court of Appeals only considered the facial challenges.

8 Matter of Orvis Co. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal, 654 N.E.2d 954 (N.Y. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 989 (1995).

9 Complete Auto Transit v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977).

10 386 U.S. 753 (1967).

11 504 U.S. 298 (1992).

12 Orvis Co., 654 N.E.2d 954 (N.Y. 1995), quoting National Geographic Society v. California Board of Equalization, 430 U.S. 551 (1977).

13 Id.

14 Citing Quill, 504 U.S. 298 (1992).

15 The click-through nexus statute presumption applies if the resident receives a "commission or other consideration." N.Y. TAX LAW § 1101(b)(8)(vi).

16 Click-through nexus has been enacted by Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Vermont (contingent on 15 or more states enacting clickthrough nexus legislation). Also, click-through nexus legislation has been proposed in many other states, including Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi and Utah.

17 Note that an Illinois trial court has ruled that the state's click-through nexus law violates the Commerce Clause and is preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution due to the federal moratorium against discriminatory states taxes on electronic commerce contained in the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Performance Marketing Association, Inc. v. Hamer, Illinois Circuit Court, First Judicial Circuit, No. 2011 CH 26333, May 7, 2012. This case has been appealed.

18 H.R. 684, introduced by U.S. Representative Steve Womack of Arkansas (with 39 cosponsors) on Feb. 14, 2013; S. 336, introduced by U.S. Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming (with 19 cosponsors) on Feb. 14, 2013. For a discussion of the proposed Marketplace Fairness Act, see GT SALT Alert: Federal Legislation Re-Introduced to Authorize States to Impose Sales Tax Collection Requirements on Remote Sellers http://www.grantthornton.com/staticfiles/GTCom/Tax/SALT_Alert_files/Marketplace_Fairness_Act_2013_SALT_Alert.pdf.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Day Pitney LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Day Pitney LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions