This week, the eyes of the nation turn to South Carolina. No, not for the 37th Annual South Carolina Square and Round Dance Convention (though who among us doesn’t enjoy a good line dance?). They’ll be watching the South Carolina Republican primary, to be held on January 19, 2012. I know what you’re thinking: why does South Carolina matter? Aren’t the big guns Iowa and New Hampshire? Not necessarily. No Republican candidate for President has ever failed to win South Carolina and gone on to secure the nomination.

Apparently, as South Carolina goes, so goes the nation.

That’s why it was interesting to see the budget as proposed by Gov. Nikki Haley (R) this week. South Carolina voters are being issued a challenge this year as the legislature works to get spending under control without raising taxes, a challenge familiar to voters on the national scene.

Under Haley’s budget proposal, corporate income taxes would be phased out over four years. Individual taxpayers would receive a break, too, worth about $84 per taxpayer. Tax brackets would also be streamlined, reducing the number from six brackets to three.

Lower tax revenues, however, also mean fewer dollars to spend. As a result, Haley suggests cutting funding for public schools (and boosting charters, a notion popular among conservative voters) and pushing the responsibility for maintaining roads to counties. Her most controversial cuts include freezing wages for state employees, though the budget also includes increases for funding and employee health care. Haley acknowledged that this would be a bitter pill for state employees to swallow, saying:

You can’t give everything you want to give. Do I want state employees to have more? Yes. Was this year the year to do it? No, I think they deserve it. We have some of the hardest-working state employees out there.

I’m guessing that’s not going to be enough for state employees.

Pay freezes for government employees are a pretty popular budget cutting maneuver these days. The House of Representatives passed a similar bill that would affect federal employees but the final version didn’t make it through the Senate. Republicans generally supported the freeze while Democrats, including President Obama, have opposed the freeze.

But… why aren’t pay freezes on the table in lean times? It is in private enterprise. Why not in government? And yes, when I say government, I’m including Congress and their aides.

I don’t understand how we’ve gotten to the point where raises are automatic simply based on the passage of time. It used to be that raises were about achievement. Now, it’s simply for hanging around without getting fired. Isn’t that a bit like handing out a diploma merely because you showed up for school? Don’t misunderstand: I’m not begrudging anyone a raise. But when we start looking at how to save money, why should government employees get a pass?

I’m not so sure that those in the South Carolina legislature will share that sentiment. It will be interesting to see how the pay freezes and other parts of the budget will be embraced. It’s significant on a number of levels, including the fact the although Haley is in her second year as Governor, this represents her first official budget proposal. She’s touting pieces of it as important tax reform, a key platform issue. Tax reform and cost cutting… As South Carolina goes, so does the nation?

–

Want more taxgirl goodness? Sign up to receive posts by email, follow me on twitter (@taxgirl) or hang out with me on Facebook.Similar Posts:

• Sanford Vetoes Cigarette Tax
• South Carolina Legislators Endeavor to Make the State Moral
• SC Says No to Amazon.com: What Now?
• SC Residents Save Lock, Stock and Barrel
• California Faces Massive Deficit, Likely to Raise Taxes

I hate to shop. I don’t have the patience for it. I have three kids and if you’ve ever been behind me in line at the store (first of all, I apologize), you know that the whole production takes forever. Add to the timing pressure the fact that I work and I write… And well, you get the picture. This is why I’m a pretty big fan of online shopping when possible.

Around the holidays, I find it particularly convenient because my time is even more crunched. This year, I have a couple of events coming up and I needed something to wear so I decided to whip out the Nordstrom’s gift card that I’ve been carrying around and order a few things online. Easy peasy, right?

I clicked through and put a few things in my cart. Nordstrom’s was offering free shipping with my purchase so I was getting out of the online store without ponying up a penny of my own money. Nice, right?

Except that when I went to check out, I owed a balance. I scanned my cart and saw a charge for sales tax. That was clearly an error since in Pennsylvania, there is no sales tax on clothing. And since sales tax is a state specific charge, for online purposes, the tax is levied on the purchase according to the location of the shopper. In my case, that equaled no sales tax.

So I did what any self-respecting tax blogger would do: I called up Customer Service at Nordstrom. For the record, they were lovely. I asked why I was being charged sales tax and I got this politely worded (but oddly confusing) explanation about how the charge appears in the cart until the order is shipped, at which time there’s an adjustment according to where the package is going. Initially, however, you have to pay enough to cover the cost of the alleged sales tax. I did.

My package shipped out last night. And sure enough, the email that alerted me that the order was finalized noted that there was no sales tax charged to me.

But goodness. So confusing.

I understand why taxpayers want online sales tax to be more simple though I admit that I am not crazy about most of the proposals to fix it. There’s an awfully fine balance to be had here – weighing the rights of states to control their own economic policies against the need for retailers to make customers happy. Quirky tax bloggers notwithstanding, most online shoppers just want to buy a scarf or a Harry Potter DVD with the least amount of effort. Maybe we can figure out a way to make that happen – with no bah humbug required?Similar Posts:

• Ask the taxgirl: Resale
• Holy Zappos! New York is Collecting Sales Tax on Online Sales.
• Tax on Internet Sales Not Likely to Pass… Again
• California Steps Up Efforts to Tax Online Sales
• The Terminator Wants Your Cash

I don’t do the whole Black Friday thing. There is nothing (and I mean nothing) that I want/need/crave/desire enough to stand in line with a bunch of total strangers – who may or may not have showered recently – to buy.

I do, however, do Cyber Monday, the online version of Black Friday. I’m not alone: according to a survey conducted for Shop.org by BIGresearch, 106.9 million Americans plan to shop on Cyber Monday this year. Cyber Monday, or the Monday after Thanksgiving, is considered the biggest online shopping day of the year. Stores offer bargains and deals and I can shop while sitting at the comfort of my office desk, sipping on a mug of coffee.

All of that shopping will translate to about $1 billion in online shopping on one day of the year. Much of that shopping will be sales tax free. A boon for shoppers, perhaps, but is it fair to brick and mortar retailers – not just the big box stores but Mom and Pop corner stores? Most Americans, believe it or not, say no.

Despite the fact that most Americans (and shoppers) understand the disparity, retailers are not quick to embrace the notion of collecting sales tax with [entity id="organization_4e9877e7b9de6df023ba6010" style="padding: 1px; color: #fff; background: #336699;" class="forbes_entity" active="true" item_id="organization_4e9877e7b9de6df023ba6010" key="amazon" ticker="AMZN" exchange="NASDAQ" description="Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon.com) is a customer-centric company for three primary customer sets: consumers, sellers and enterprises. In addition, the Company generates revenue through other marketing and promotional services, such as online advertising, and co-branded credit card agreements. The Company operates in two segments: North America and International. The Company serves consumers through its retail Websites, and focus on selection, price, and convenience. It designs its Websites to enable products to be sold by it and by third parties across dozens of product categories. It also manufactures and sells the Kindle e-reader. It offers customers membership in Amazon Prime. It also provides easy-to-use functionality, fulfillment and customer service. In February 2010, the Company acquired Touchco, a touch screen technology company." latitude="47.62224" longitude="-122.337131" display="Amazon.com" image="http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/companies/amazon_200x200.jpg" natural_id="fred/company/196" type="organization" subtype="company" lists="&91;{"key":"global2000","name":"Global 2000","rank":302}&93;" active="false"]Amazon.com[/entity] leading the charge. The online retail giant has made no secret of its efforts (shored up with a number of lobbyists and legal teams) to avoid collecting sales tax at the state level. Other retailers which rely on an online presence have entered the fray while traditional big box retailers like Best Buy and Wal-Mart have joined forces with smaller retailers to protest what they view as an inequity.

[entity id="organization_4e9877e7b9de6df023ba6010" style="padding: 1px; color: #000; background: #ddd;" class="forbes_entity" active="false" item_id="organization_4e9877e7b9de6df023ba6010" key="amazon" ticker="AMZN" exchange="NASDAQ" description="Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon.com) is a customer-centric company for three primary customer sets: consumers, sellers and enterprises. In addition, the Company generates revenue through other marketing and promotional services, such as online advertising, and co-branded credit card agreements. The Company operates in two segments: North America and International. The Company serves consumers through its retail Websites, and focus on selection, price, and convenience. It designs its Websites to enable products to be sold by it and by third parties across dozens of product categories. It also manufactures and sells the Kindle e-reader. It offers customers membership in Amazon Prime. It also provides easy-to-use functionality, fulfillment and customer service. In February 2010, the Company acquired Touchco, a touch screen technology company." latitude="47.62224" longitude="-122.337131" display="Amazon.com" image="http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/companies/amazon_200x200.jpg" natural_id="fred/company/196" type="organization" subtype="company" lists="&91;{"key":"global2000","name":"Global 2000","rank":302}&93;" active="false"]Amazon.com[/entity], for its part, supports an alternative, the Marketplace Fairness Act. The bill, which is currently in Congress, has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, and would essentially control the ability of individual states to collect sales tax. Interestingly, the wording purports to bolster the authority of states to collect by saying:

It is the sense of Congress that States should have the ability to enforce their existing sales and use tax laws and to treat similar sales transactions equally, without regard to the manner in which the sale is transacted, and the right to collect–or decide not to collect–taxes that are already owed under State law.

It starts off, good, right? It confirms that states should have some control over enforcement of their own tax laws. However, the bill goes on to require states that wish to collect sales tax online join the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement and follow a set of prescribed rules.

Hmm. More federal regulation? It seems antithetical to the states’ ability to set their own rules with respect to collecting tax. And allowing Congress just one more iota of control over how the individual states are taxed – when they can’t even agree on a federal income tax – isn’t appealing.

I get that the current hodgepodge of laws can be confusing for taxpayers. And I’m not saying that a consistent set of laws is a bad thing. To the contrary, I think it’s a good thing for retailers and consumers to have a sense of rational, logical tax laws. It’s the drafting and implementation that worries me. Common sense? Consensus? Fairness? I just don’t know that I trust Congress to make that happen. Anyone else?

–

Want more taxgirl goodness? Sign up to receive posts by email, follow me on twitter (@taxgirl) or hang out with me on Facebook.Similar Posts:

• Online Sales Continue to Puzzle Holiday Shoppers
• More States Eye Amazon Sales Tax Deal
• “Amazon Tax” Repealed Under New Law
• Internet Tax Ban Not Made Permanent
• Hey Congress, Why Don’t You…? Estate Tax and Dividends

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case of Armour, et al., v. [entity id="place_4e0a70360f93e476d9b1c10f" style="padding: 1px; color: #fff; background: #336699;" class="forbes_entity" active="true" item_id="place_4e0a70360f93e476d9b1c10f" key="in/indianapolis" latitude="39.76691" longitude="-86.149964" display="Indianapolis" image="http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/places/indianapolis-in_50x50.jpg" natural_id="places/26900" type="place" lists="[]” active=”false”]Indianapolis[/entity], et al (docket 11-161). That’s a lawyerly way of saying that the Supreme Court will hear the matter. Some cases have what’s called “original jurisdiction” in the Supreme Court but most do not. To be heard at the Supreme Court level without having original jurisdiction requires the losing party at the appellate level to file a petition seeking a review of the case. If the Supreme Court grants the petition and decides to hear the matter, it’s called a writ of certiorari. And that’s what happened here.

The case in Armour involves the constitutional duty of local governments to treat taxpayers equally. In this particular case, residents were assessed a sewer tax in the Northern Estates subdivision of [entity id="place_4e0a70360f93e476d9b1c10f" style="padding: 1px; color: #000; background: #ddd;" class="forbes_entity" active="false" item_id="place_4e0a70360f93e476d9b1c10f" key="in/indianapolis" latitude="39.76691" longitude="-86.149964" display="Indianapolis" image="http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/places/indianapolis-in_50x50.jpg" natural_id="places/26900" type="place" lists="[]” active=”false”]Indianapolis[/entity]. Residents had the option of paying the tax of nearly $10,000 upfront or over a period of 10, 20 or 30 years together with interest. The majority of homeowners opted to pay out in installments.

As governments are wont to do, this one changed its plan. The City Council in [entity id="place_4e0a70360f93e476d9b1c10f" style="padding: 1px; color: #000; background: #ddd;" class="forbes_entity" active="false" item_id="place_4e0a70360f93e476d9b1c10f" key="in/indianapolis" latitude="39.76691" longitude="-86.149964" display="Indianapolis" image="http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/places/indianapolis-in_50x50.jpg" natural_id="places/26900" type="place" lists="[]” active=”false”]Indianapolis[/entity] decided on a new plan which involved a flat fee to connect to the sewers at a lower cost. As a nod to those homeowners who still owed a balance under the previous installment plan, the local public works forgave any balance due. Nice, right? But what about those homeowners who had opted to pay in advance? The City decided those homeowners were out of luck and the Indiana Supreme Court agreed (opinion downloads as a pdf).

On its face, the specific question is whether it was okay for the city to keep the money that was already paid in by some taxpayers. But the bigger question – and what the Supreme Court will be expected to answer – is whether governments should be required to issue refunds when they switch course on a project.

Amicus briefs were filed by the Tax Foundation (brief downloads as a pdf) and the National Taxpayer’s Union (brief downloads as a pdf). Amicus briefs are most often filed by an advocacy group in support of a position when the group isn’t actually a party to the litigation. The idea, as in this case, is to present information on an issue that might have broader implications beyond the specific fact pattern outlined in the case.

In the case of Armour, the hope is that the Supreme Court will sort out what’s fair when it comes to taxpayers, assessments and refunds. Does the law require that all taxpayers be treated the same at all stages of collections? And if the rules of the game change (or the reasoning behind the original plan), like they did in [entity id="place_4e0a70360f93e476d9b1c10f" style="padding: 1px; color: #000; background: #ddd;" class="forbes_entity" active="false" item_id="place_4e0a70360f93e476d9b1c10f" key="in/indianapolis" latitude="39.76691" longitude="-86.149964" display="Indianapolis" image="http://images.forbes.com/media/lists/places/indianapolis-in_50x50.jpg" natural_id="places/26900" type="place" lists="[]” active=”false”]Indianapolis[/entity], how far must the government go to ensure that everyone is on equal footing? Depending on how broadly the matter is approached, the results could be far reaching.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in Armour beginning February 2012.

–

Want more taxgirl goodness? Sign up to receive posts by email, follow me on twitter (@taxgirl) or hang out with me on Facebook.Similar Posts:

• Taxapalooza at the Supreme Court: Part Two
• The Most Important Tax Ruling You’ve Probably Never Heard Of
• Why Murphy Will Fail at the Supreme Court
• New Jersey is #1!
• Does Pennsylvania Care More About Football or Taxes?

As it turns out, the New Jersey tax credit wasn’t a “shore” thing after all (I know, it was a terrible pun but I couldn’t help it).

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has decided against a $420,000 tax credit for the hit MTV show, Jersey Shore, taking his veto pen to the credit after a call from the state Senate and taxpayers in the state. Christie’s office had previously signaled that they would not take any action related to the tax credit since the show’s application was part of a pre-approved process under the Corzine administration. However, Christie – not a fan of the tax credit or Jersey Shore – eventually decided differently.

The tax credit is part of a program under the New Jersey Economic Development Authority. The Film Development Credit allows a credit of up to 20% for film production companies on their New Jersey Corporate Business or Gross Income Taxes if at least 60% of the total production expenses (not including marketing and advertising) is spent in New Jersey. Jersey Shore fits the bill: the show’s premiere season was filmed in Seaside Heights, New Jersey. The town, which was also the site for Bon Jovi’s “In and Out of Love” video (yes, I’m a child of the 80s, why do you ask?) has been largely supportive of the show due to the boost it has provided to the local economy.

However, the rest of New Jersey isn’t quite as thrilled with the show. A number of groups, including Italian-American organizations, have been unhappy with the language, excessive drinking, sexual content and ethnic stereotypes on the show. As a result, there has been a significant push back for any incentives – tax credits or otherwise – offered to the show.

Gov. Christie formally announced the tax credit veto via a letter to Caren S. Franzini, CEO of the NJEDA. In the letter, Christie wrote:

In this difficult fiscal climate, the taxpayers of New Jersey should not be forced to subsidize projects such as Jersey Shore. We must ensure that our limited taxpayer dollars are spent on programs and projects that best benefit the State of New Jersey… I am duty-bound to ensure that taxpayers are not footing a $420,000 bill for a project which does nothing more than perpetuate misconceptions about the State and its citizens.

The Governor later announced the veto on Twitter:

So far, there hasn’t been any reply to the Governor on Twitter from Snooki, Sammi, Ronnie or Pauly – though in fairness, I’m not sure that the cast follows the Governor – or politics and current events for that matter (although Snooki did tweet McCain about the tanning tax last year).

The response on social media from taxpayers, however, has been largely positive for the Governor though some have questioned (and rightfully so) whether the result might be a Jersey-sized lawsuit. Do I sense another reality show?Similar Posts:

• Here’s the Situation: Call to Block “Jersey Shore” Tax Credit
• Snooki, McCain Tweet Tax
• Christie Wastes No Time on Veto for Millionaire’s Tax
• Surprise! NJ Doesn’t Like High Taxes
• New Jersey Caps Property Taxes: Will It Be Enough?

On September 21, 2011, at exactly 11:08 p.m. EST, Troy Davis was put to death by the state of Georgia after the U.S. Supreme Court failed to grant him a stay. His execution by legal injection became the 1,268th recorded execution in the United States since 1976. Later that same day, Lawrence Brewer of Texas would become 1,269.

Davis’ death has become a polarizing story in the death penalty debate in the U.S. Capital punishment is allowed in most states since it was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976; it was suspended from 1972 to 1976 following the Supreme Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). As of 2011, only fifteen states have abolished the death penalty. They are Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. But there’s a chance that those numbers might increase. And maybe not for the reasons that you might think.

Opponents of the death penalty have cited a number of factors that argue in favor of abolishing the death penalty. It is, they say, not an effective deterrent against crime. Statistics appear to back this up: states which impose the death penalty continue to report the highest murder rates in the country with only three states without the death penalty ranked in the top twenty five (Michigan, New York and Alaska).

Other arguments include evidence that the death penalty may be racially biased and that it disproportionately punishes the poor. And of course, there is the fundamental assertion that the death penalty is cruel and inhumane.

For years, these reasonings have failed to sway a majority of Americans. But now, something else may be turning the tide of public opinion – and it has little to do with ethical, moral or legal arguments. It’s all about cold, hard cash.

As states face increased pressure to cut costs in their budgets, every line item is getting a second look. One startling finding? Death penalty cases are, from start to finish, more expensive than other criminal cases including those that result in life without parole.

How expensive is the death penalty? Just over a year ago, Fox News issued this alarming statement:

Every time a killer is sentenced to die, a school closes.

Dramatic, sure. But some claim that the data backs up these assertions.

While the actual execution costs taxpayers fairly little (the drugs used in Texas run a mere $83), the costs associated with death penalty trials and the resulting incarceration are disproportionately higher.

Citing Richard C. Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center, Fox reported that studies have “uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole.”

A Urban Institute study (downloads as a pdf) found that “[i]n Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case” while a 2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research that claimed “[i]n Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.”

And in cash strapped California, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice issued a report (downloads as a pdf) that concluded, among other things, that “[i]t can certainly be said that death penalty trials take longer and cost considerably more than non-death murder trials.”

I assumed that this was because of all of the post-trial finagling that goes on. I was wrong. After reviewing data from state reports, Amnesty International concluded that “the greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.”

The numbers associated with jail time are just as large. In terms of dollars spent behind bars, the California Commission found that “the additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.” Since that statement, California’s death row has grown to 721, the largest in the country.

The story is the same in North Carolina. A 2010 Duke University study found that taxpayers in the Tarheel State could save $11 million a year by substituting life in prison for the death penalty.

The numbers are even more dramatic in Garden State. Prior to the abolishing the death penalty in the state, a report by New Jersey Policy Perspectives found that “New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one.”

But the end result is worth it, right?

Maybe not. At least ten states, including Florida, Texas and California, have been forced to release prisoners early because of overcrowding – all of those states have expensive death penalty programs. Budgetary restraints have resulted in shortened sentences (some as low as 20%) and lay-offs of corrections officers inside prisons, as well as reduced numbers of police officers on the streets. More telling, in one Washington county, Prosecutor Dan Satterberg was forced to eliminate the jobs of 36 prosecutors since 2008 – all while the cost of defending two active capital cases escalated.

Who pays those costs? You and I. State and local governments typically bear the burden of paying to pursue death penalty cases – and that means tax dollars. Even prosecutors agree that those costs aren’t always worth it.

Raising taxes to pay for death penalty prosecutions isn’t going to win over many taxpayers even though such increases have happened in some counties (as it did notoriously in Lincoln County, Georgia). However, the alternatives – cutting police or releasing prisoners early – are hardly appealing.

So in a depressed economy, do you cut your losses? Is now the time to say goodbye to the death penalty? Some states, like Kansas, have been making some noise about it. Will others follow suit? I don’t know.

I do know that it feels weird to be talking about a person’s life in terms of dollars and taxes. But then, to pretend that it isn’t a real consideration would clearly be disingenuous.Similar Posts:

• Texas Sized Tax Break for Yacht Owners
• Texas Institutes Stripper Tax
• Are You Ready for Government Prepared Tax Returns?
• Taxes and the State of the Union
• Occupy Wall Street Raises Questions About Taxes, Money and Blame

So who didn’t see this coming?

With the ink barely dry on California’s internet sales tax deal with Amazon, other states are chatting up a similar idea.

Even states that were willing to sit this one out – like Florida – are beginning to talk. An Op-Ed in The Ledger is suggesting that California’s coup may give Florida business the impetus they need to convince state lawmakers to push legislation forcing Amazon (and other internet retailers) to collect sales tax in the state. Legislation that would do exactly that in the Sunshine State is currently stalled.

Those groups are clearly wondering whether taxing the retailer – and then asking for concessions in return for a break – is the way to go. After all, it worked for California, right?

But maybe this is all terribly calculated. And by maybe, I mean probably.

With states falling all over themselves to cut deals with the online retail giant, Amazon is suddenly the girl that everyone wants to take to prom. But she only has eyes for Congress.

Yep, it’s feeling more and more like Amazon is hoping to whip states into a frenzy over this sales tax issue that’s sufficiently large enough to get the attention of the folks in D.C. And in this allegedly pro-business, “no new taxes” climate, one of two things will likely happen:

1. any deal that is struck in D.C. will be generally more favorable to Amazon than the individual states would/could provide; or
2. Amazon is counting on the fact that it takes long enough to get things done in D.C. that it might effectively stall attempts by the states or the feds to collect.

And if I’m thinking it – me, of the mostly chirpy, annoyingly optimistic Pollyanna disposition – somebody else has to be thinking it, too. Am I right?Similar Posts:

• “Amazon Tax” Repealed Under New Law
• California Steps Up Efforts to Tax Online Sales
• Clock Ticking on Amazon Deal
• Amazon Fights Back Against Online Sales Tax Law
• Dramatic Turnabout in Amazon’s Fight with California

When you live in Philadelphia, you have to make fun of New Jersey. I think it’s in the City charter or something. And as much as I love Jon Stewart, Springsteen, fresh blueberries and the oh-so-civilized liquor laws, I still can’t help but poke fun at state whose residents identify themselves by exit numbers and whose sports teams won’t even own up to being there (yes, I’m talking to you, NY Giants and NY Jets).

But even those things pale in comparison to New Jersey’s biggest and easiest target to skewer: the hit MTV show, Jersey Shore. The show has found itself at the center of yet another controversy focusing on efforts to yank a state tax credit awarded to the show.

Jersey Shore feels like it’s been around forever, maybe since its “stars” (and I use that term loosely) have made the rounds (and rounds) on the TV, book and red carpet circuits trying to suck every last second out of their supposed 15 minutes of fame. The show, however, is actually only two years old. It debuted in winter of 2009 and was meant to follow the lives of eight housemates spending their summer at the Jersey Shore. Sounds innocent enough, right?

Not really. Initial advertisements for the show promised to expose:

one of the tri-state area’s most misunderstood species… the GUIDO. Yes, they really do exist! Our Guidos and Guidettes will move into the ultimate beach house rental and indulge in everything the Seaside Heights, New Jersey scene has to offer.

The show was immediately met with criticism for its use of the word “guido” to promote the show and describe the cast members. The word, which I never heard until I moved up north, is generally considered an ethnic slur and isn’t something you’d use in polite conversation. Many Italian-Americans are highly offended by the term and wanted references to “the g word” pulled from the show – especially considering that many of the cast members bandying the terms about weren’t even Italian or Italian-American (or from New Jersey but what’s a little authenticity problem when it comes to reality TV?). The ratings were huge but pressure from Italian-American groups caused several sponsors to pull their ads, including Dell and Domino’s.

Fueling the criticism, the show portrayed the cast as boozy, lazy, sleazy and prone to violence. At least two of the cast members, Ronni and Snooki, have been arrested while affiliated with the show. A number of prominent NJ residents, including Governor Chris Christie (R), have been critical of the show. Christie has referred to the show as “negative for New Jersey… The show takes a bunch of New Yorkers and drops them at the Jersey Shore and tries to make America feel like this is the real New Jersey.”

Gov. Christie is now being called upon to block a $420,000 tax credit awarded to the production company of the show. Italian-Americans in the state agree, with Andre’ DiMino, President of Italian American ONE VOICE Coalition, saying:

Public monies should never be used to subsidize and promote violence, criminal behavior and ethnic stereotyping. This is disgraceful, and we are calling upon Governor Christie and all our legislators to immediately stop the tax credit for ‘Jersey Shore.’

It puts Christie in a peculiar spot. He’s not a fan of the show. And he’s not a fan of the tax credit generally. And this is definitely not his baby: the tax credit is part of leftovers from the Corzine administration. Christie’s office, however, claims that he can’t do anything about it since the application was part of a pre-approved process.

Interestingly, Seaside Heights, where the show is “filmed” supports the tax credit. Mayor P. Kenneth Hershey has indicated that he believes that the show brings tourists – and therefore money – to the state which was exactly the purpose of the credit in the first place.

I would question whether those (the Jersey Shore fans) are the kinds of tourists you want coming to your town.

Full disclosure: I’ve never seen a complete episode of Jersey Shore. I’ve seen clips and I can’t bring myself to watch it which is saying a lot because I don’t shy away from reality TV. My friend, Jen Miller, who writes a blog about the real Jersey Shore, Down the Shore With Jen, and has authored a book about same, assures me that in no way does it reflect the real Jersey Shore. Which begs the question why the tax credit was awarded to the show in the first place. I guess somebody has to pay for all of that fake tanning and hair spray.Similar Posts:

• New Jersey Says No To Tax Credit for “Jersey Shore”
• Surprise! NJ Doesn’t Like High Taxes
• New Jersey Caps Property Taxes: Will It Be Enough?
• NJ Governor Takes a Beating for Tax Cuts
• Christie Wastes No Time on Veto for Millionaire’s Tax

Talk about down to the wire… The Amazon deal is so fresh (it was passed after 10pm last night) that you can’t find much in the way of confirmation yet on the web. In fact, the California legislature has the bill, AB 155, listed as “in assembly” since the vote taken on yesterday is still considered an “unofficial ballot.” I’m assuming – since I’m not familiar with California’s legislative process – that the votes have to be certified before the bill can be moved to the governor’s office; if any of my California readers can shed some light on the process, your commentary would be welcome.

Gov. Brown (D) has until October 9, 2011, to sign or veto the bill. His office has not officially signaled whether he will sign but judging from the overwhelming support of the bill in the legislature, my gut is that he will. You can see how the votes stacked up here.

AB 155, as amended, temporarily repeals ABX1 28, widely referred to as the “Amazon Tax” for its ties to the online retailing giant. Over the past few days, Amazon has been working hard to craft a deal that would delay the implementation of the old law. It appears that they were successful.

Under existing law, retailers “engaged in business” in the state of California were responsible for collecting sales tax. The law defined a “retailer engaged in business in this state” to include:

• a retailer that has substantial nexus with this state and a retailer upon whom federal law permits the state to impose a use tax collection duty;
• a retailer entering into an agreement or agreements under which a person or persons in this state, for a
• commission or other consideration, directly or indirectly refer potential purchasers of tangible personal property to the retailer, whether by an Internet-based link or an Internet Web site, or otherwise, provided that 2 specified conditions are met, including the condition that the retailer, within the preceding 12 months, has total cumulative sales of tangible personal property to purchasers in this state in excess of $500,000; and
• a retailer that is a member of a commonly controlled group, as defined under the Corporation Tax Law, and a member of a combined reporting group, as defined, that includes another member of the retailer’s commonly
• controlled group that, pursuant to an agreement with or in cooperation with the retailer, performs services in this state in connection with tangible personal property to be sold by the retailer.

Under the new law, the definition of a “retailer engaged in business in this state” is revised and other caveats and exceptions may apply (of course). The real result is that Amazon and other online retailers won’t have to collect sales tax from consumers until September 15, 2012. Amazon, in turn, has agreed to drop its efforts to put the issue on the voting ballot.

As part of the deal, Amazon will bring back its affiliate program in California – at least for one year.

The deal is contingent on the feds not passing any law that usurps this one between now and July 2012. Although, oddly enough, everyone involved in the deal promised to work to push through the Main Street Fairness Act which would impose a national standard for sales tax among the various states. I said yesterday, on the this WEEK in Law’s Sex, Death and Taxes episode, that I don’t think this will happen in a year. I stand by that.

That “we’ll bring 7,000 jobs to California” clause that was touted by Amazon? Not part of the deal. But that likely has everything to do with timing. Amazon was pushing for a two year reprieve; they got one.

You can read the entire text of the bill here.

Reactions to the deal are all over the place. You can read some early commentary here:

• The Flash Report
• Blog.FedTax.Net
• LA Times Money & Company
• Sacramento Bee

Updated:

• Forbes, Janet Novack

I haven’t yet seen any comments from Amazon. What are your thoughts?Similar Posts:

• More States Eye Amazon Sales Tax Deal
• Dramatic Turnabout in Amazon’s Fight with California
• Clock Ticking on Amazon Deal
• California Steps Up Efforts to Tax Online Sales
• Even Sales Tax Bills Are Bigger in Texas

Yesterday, the web lit up early (including on my site) with commentary about Amazon.com’s supposed tax deal with the State of California. And then… crickets.

The deal was supposedly hammered out on late Wednesday but no solid details about the controversial plan were released. Representatives on both sides weren’t all that chatty but indicated that the deal would provide for a one year moratorium on collections of sales tax on internet purchases in exchange for Amazon’s promise to drop their efforts to repeal the sales tax. Since then, there’s been little information made public. It’s hard to tell whether that means that the deal has stalled or simply not yet announced.

Here’s why the silence matters: the California legislature, by rule (J.R. 61(a)(14)), has until September 9, 2011 to pass any legislation to be considered for 2011. And then they recess until January 4, 2012. And yes, they did just get back from a month long summer recess; I don’t purport to understand how anything gets done in the state.

At any rate, that means the deadline for hammering something out is today. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) would then have one month – until October 9 – to sign or veto any bill passed and in his possession on or after September 9 (Art. IV, Sec.10(b)(1)).

So today is literally it. I’ll let you know if (and when) I hear something.Similar Posts:

• More States Eye Amazon Sales Tax Deal
• “Amazon Tax” Repealed Under New Law
• Dramatic Turnabout in Amazon’s Fight with California
• The Terminator Wants Your Cash
• Like the Way I Do: Melissa Etheridge Threatens Not to Pay State Taxes