Actually they were. They filed a "friend of the court" brief agreeing with the position of South Dakota that online sales should be subject to sales tax.
-
-
-
my dude, a friend of the court brief does not mean you're a part of the case
-
I know that, but the point is that, contrary to Trump, Amazon was not taking the position that sales taxes should not apply to online sales. Quite the opposite actually.
-
Link to that amicus brief you’re referring to?
-
Amazon did not file an amicus brief. The National Retail Federation, of which Amazon is a member, did though
-
I stand corrected. However, it's also the case that Amazon's public position on online sales taxes has changed. Contrary to Trump's assertion, they do not oppose applying sales tax laws to online sales.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also I believe they were already paying “the Tax” (since they had a physical presence in most states)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How many people are arguing the exact same BAD ARGUMENT. Amazon was literally the party MOST affected by the Scotus ruling, since it pays almost no sales tax.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Or that Amazon didn’t publicly go crazy afterward, since they had foresight, planned for this contingency and started complying immediately? It’s clear that the party going crazy in the presidential tweet is not Amazon.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
He is threatening to use the powers of the US Government against a private individual whom he perceives to be saying mean things about him!!! This IS NOT allowed!!!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.