The place to find business sales tax information

— as well as solutions, services and jobs!

New York Amazon Law Ruling: Website Nexus and Physical Presence

author photo of Jerry Donnini

On March 28, 2013, a strong blow was delivered against the online retailers by New York’s highest court in Overstock & Amazon v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. The court ruled that section 1101, New York’s Tax Law, is constitutional. Specifically, the court ruled that the so-called “Amazon Laws” do not violate the Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. In a nutshell, the case discussed whether Amazon and Overstock had nexus with New York due to its affiliate programs. The ruling gave the state a powerful and expansive ruling in the world of Internet retailer nexus cases, and one can easily infer that other states will follow and enact similar laws that generate tax revenue from internet retailers making sales within their respective states.

By way of background, New York amended its tax law to include internet retailers, such as and, as “vendors.” The designation as a “vendor” is critical in most states’ tax regimes because a vendor must charge, collect, and remit sales and use tax to a state for sales made in the state. New York broadly drafted its “vendor” definition that created a presumption for out-of-state vendors that solicit business through a representative in which the vendor pays a commission for referrals exceeding $10,000. Thus, if a remote vendor uses the websites of others, generates at least $10,000 in sales, and pays the representative a commission, then the New York law applies, and a presumption of an independent contractor or agent soliciting sales in New York is raised. This concept enacted by New York and many other jurisdictions is referred to as “Affiliate Nexus.”

In 2008, and challenged the Tax Law arguing that the law was unconstitutional. Essentially the online retailers argued that the law violated the famous ruling in Quill v. North Dakota. Quill states that nexus arises if a company has “physical presence” in the taxing state. While it seems like a clear bright-line rule, whether an activity constitutes “physical presence” has proved to be a perplexing inquiry. The most recent guidance from the Supreme Court has taught us that mere solicitation through advertising does not create nexus while an independent contractor soliciting sales on a vendor’s behalf does. Everything in between is open for debate. Both the trial court and the appellate court (2010) found that New York’s Amazon Law is constitutional on its face. It was these rulings that were appealed to New York’s highest court.

The Court began its analysis by describing how the “as-applied” challenge was set aside, and how the online retailers only moved forward with its appeal on facial challenge grounds. Like almost every court does in a constitutional challenge to a nexus statute, the court in the instant case started with the Complete Auto, four prong test. And, like most nexus cases, the court hedged its discussion to only whether the “substantial nexus” prong of Complete Auto was violated.

The Court acknowledged the controlling decision in Quill and agreed that absent physical presence, an out-of-state retailer does not have nexus. Starting to distinguish from Quill, the court then stated that the slightest presence in a state would suffice and such a presence need not be substantial—even though the Complete Auto test says “substantial” presence. The court argued that the requisite “slightest presence” was met because Amazon and Overstock use affiliates as its in state sales force. In short, the online retailer’s payment to use another’s website to direct traffic (and ultimately sales) to its website is a physical presence. How a website has “physical” presence anywhere is beyond me. The court plainly stated:

The 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.

While one can see New York’s motivation for attempting to capture tax revenue through online retailers such as Amazon and Overstock, the logic is abundant with gaping holes and numerous problems. Does this rule say, if I allow a company to use my personal Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram page for a commission, then that company now has nexus in the state in which I am resident? This notion seems to run greatly afoul of Quill in that the online-retailer may have no idea as to where I am located. How does the online retailer even figure out where the affiliate’s website is physically present? What happens if the affiliate is deemed to be physically present in one state but its ISP server is in another state? One can easily see the myriad of issues that this ruling may unintentionally create.

Unfortunately, until Congress intervenes with federal legislation or until the Supreme Court hears an online retailer nexus case, states have no reason to put the brakes on. Further, there is no reason that other states will not enact similar legislation to that of New York in order to collect significant tax revenues. The problem remains, however, that the Supreme Court of the United States was hesitant to even take Quill over 20 years ago because it is bound by prior rulings. The prior rulings demand physical presence. Likewise, Congress has no incentive to act because resolving the problem provides clarity to the states but no real benefit for the federal government. Moreover, if Congress were to require the online retailers to collect and remit tax, it would be viewed as a new tax. As our marketplace shifts to the online arena it will be interesting to see developments to come as companies continue to challenge “Amazon Laws” enacted in the last 5-10 years.

I am curious to hear your feedback as to whether you think this ruling is consistent with Quill? What other issues can you think of that are raised by this reach of a ruling?

About the Author: Mr. Donnini is a multi-state sales and use tax attorney and a shareholder in the law firm Moffa, Sutton & Donnini, PA, based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Donnini’s primary practice is multi-state sales and use tax as well as state corporate income tax controversy. Mr. Donnini also practices in the areas of federal tax controversy, federal estate planning, Florida probate, and all other state taxes including communication service tax, cigarette & tobacco tax, motor fuel tax, and Native American taxation. Mr. Donnini earned his LL.M. in Taxation at NYU. He is also a co-author of the CCH Expert Treatise Library: State Sales and Use Taxation. Please feel free to visit his firm’s web-site or his blog .

Questions? If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact him via email at or call 954-642-9390.

Other recent “Sales Tax Nexus” posts by Jerry Donnini:

NOTE: All blog content, comments, and participation subject to disclaimer at bottom of page.


2 Responses to New York Amazon Law Ruling: Website Nexus and Physical Presence

  • Posted by Steve on May 8, 2015 10:33am:

    Makes me wonder if NY would be able to force Amazon to collect and remit sales tax on sales consummated by third party vendors like Cuomo proposed recently. Thoughts on that?

    • Posted by Author photo of Jerry DonniniJerry Donnini on May 13, 2015 4:36am:

      I am not sure which proposals you are referencing?

Submit a comment or question - only your first name will appear


Access to any portion of is contingent upon your acceptance of our Terms of Use. This Web Site and content provided by STS Publishing, LLC and its third party content providers, including, but not limited to information, documents, forms, comments, advice and opinions, is for informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for professional advice, nor does the use of this Web Site constitute a professional-client relationship. The Web-Site also includes advertisements, directory listings, job postings and links to third party web sites, all of which are provided for your convenience only and in no way constitute a referral, endorsement, or warranty by of any product or service provided by such third parties. All content is provided “as is” with no guarantee regarding accuracy, suitability, or timeliness. Your reliance on any content accessed on or through the Web Site, or on any product or service provider is strictly at your own risk.