More State Tax E-Commerce Battles. This Time, Amazon and Expedia Battle Texas And South Carolina

Written by Evan Schuman
January 26th, 2011

The Supreme Court of South Carolina has ruled against Expedia, concluding that the travel E-Commerce site has to pay state sales tax based on all revenue, not merely on the deeply discounted block of room rates it pays. Meanwhile, Amazon is suing the Lone Star state, demanding access to a state audit that determined it owes Texas $269 million.

In South Carolina, Expedia made the standard E-Commerce arguments, namely that it doesn’t do its business in South Carolina and that it’s not really in the hotel business, as it doesn’t own any hotels. The Supreme Court saw matters differently.

Expedia “contends it is not required to pay sales tax on the service and facilitation fees it retains because such fees are ‘derived from’ the services it provides, not from the rental charge for the hotel room. We disagree,” the court ruled. Expedia “first asserts it is not engaged in the business of furnishing accommodations because it neither owns nor operates hotels. Because (Expedia) is only an intermediary providing hotel reservations to transients and does not physically provide sleeping accommodations, (Expedia) contends it is not subject to the Accommodations Tax. We disagree. While (Expedia) does not physically provide accommodations, it is in the business of doing so.”

The court then addressed the argument that Expedia “is not subject to the Accommodations Tax because it is not engaged in business in South Carolina. (Expedia) contends the phrase ‘within the State’ modifies ‘every person’ in subsection (E) and thus imposes the tax only on entities having a physical presence in the State. Because it does not have a physical presence in South Carolina, (Expedia) asserts it is not required to remit the tax. (Expedia also argues that) the absence of a use tax in South Carolina and the lack of a provision dealing with out-of-state business transactions in section 12-36-920 demonstrates that the legislature did not intend to impose the Accommodations Tax on (Expedia). We disagree.”

Why does it disagree? Said the court: “Clearly, Travelscape was engaged in the business of furnishing accommodations in South Carolina during the audit period, seeing as it: (1) entered into contracts with hundreds of hotels in South Carolina in which the hotels agreed to accept a discounted price, or net rate, for reservations made on Expedia; (2) sent employees to South Carolina for the purpose of negotiating such agreements; and (3) booked reservations in exchange for consideration at hotels located in this State. Accordingly, we find the plain language of section 12-36-920(E) imposes the sales tax on Travelscape because it was engaged in the business of furnishing accommodations in South Carolina.”

Expedia could hardly argue that it didn’t do a lot of business in South Carolina, given that it admitted having contracts with at least 354 hotels in the state.

In Texas, the Amazon case is quite different. Texas performed an audit on Amazon business and concluded that it owes $269 million in sales tax. Bearing in mind that Texas has a rather strong vested interest in concluding that it is owed as much money as possible, Amazon had the audacity to ask to see the audit. That request was declined, because the audit is protected by—wait for it—attorney-client privilege.

Amazon sued Texas, arguing that the state’s Public Information Act requires disclosure. Forget public information. Amazon is a direct party to this action and has every right to examine the audit. This is like being told by the IRS that you owe $800,000 in back taxes and when you reply, “What back taxes are you talking about?” they reply, “Sorry. That’s confidential IRS data.”


One Comment | Read More State Tax E-Commerce Battles. This Time, Amazon and Expedia Battle Texas And South Carolina

  1. KRK Says:

    Yes, Texas not sharing the audit data with the accused seems bureaucracy at its most perverse.
    Unless, it was meant to be a straw-man which would easily get knocked down in court and thus giving authorities the fig-leaf not to pursue the case.
    Remember, it is hard to imagine authorities being unaware of the existence of this distribution center for 5 years and it was a vigilant reporter from the Dallas Morning News you blew the whistle and the authorities had no choice but to go through what might be charade of an audit.
    Have you noticed how Amazon and its analysts were so nonchalant about this issue and it didn’t even figure in the 3rd quarter conference call and appeared as a small-print footnote in the 10-K.
    I think Texas wants to lose this fight but at the same time not rile up brick & mortar retail who have been incensed at this un-level playing field which has dismembered Circuit City and is hollowing out big-box retail.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.