Jeff Bezos’ Amazon is taking a high-stakes legal battle to the US Supreme Court, hiring Ted Olson, one of Washington’s most prominent lawyers, to fight the taxation of its shoppers in New York state.
杰夫·贝佐斯(Jeff Bezos)旗下的亚马逊(Amazon)将一场关系重大的法律战打到了美国最高法院，聘请了华盛顿最知名律师之一特德·奥尔森(Ted Olson)，要与纽约州针对其网购者的税收规定作斗争。
Amazon wants the court to review a case about the most incendiary political issue in US retail: the complaint by bricks-and-mortar stores that online rivals gain an unfair advantage because they do not have to charge sales tax.
亚马逊希望最高法院复审一起案件，该案关系到美国零售业中影响最大的政治问题。在该案中，实体商店指控在线零售商由于不必向顾客收取销售税(sales tax)而获得不公平的竞争优势。
Amazon has hired Mr Olson, a conservative who this year persuaded the Supreme Court to overturn California’s ban on same-sex marriage.
为此亚马逊聘请了保守派律师奥尔森。今年早些时候，奥尔森成功说服美国最高法院撤销了加利福尼亚州对同性婚姻的禁令。
Mr Olson filed a petition to the Supreme Court on August 23 urging the justices to take on a case where Amazon has challenged the New York tax department’s demand that it collect tax from shoppers in the state.
8月23日，奥尔森向最高法院递交了上诉状，恳请法官们审理亚马逊这起案件。在该案中，亚马逊质疑纽约州税务部门要求其向该州顾客收取销售税的规定。
Lobbyists for Amazon rivals such as Walmart argue that its business is built on a tax “loophole”. Under a 1992 ruling that predated ecommerce, online retailers are not required to collect sales tax in states where they have no physical presence.
沃尔玛(Walmart)等亚马逊竞争对手的游说者声称，亚马逊的业务建立在税收“漏洞”之上。根据1992年电子商务尚未兴起前的一项裁决，在线零售商在本身没有实体店的州不必向顾客收取销售税。
Amazon says it does not have a physical presence in New York, but a 2008 state law required it to collect tax there because it has ties with New York-based websites that carry Amazon advertisements.
亚马逊表示其在纽约州没有实体业务，但根据2008年一条州法律，由于亚马逊与纽约州境内一些发布亚马逊广告的网站有关联，其应向该州顾客收取销售税。
Its petition argues the law is unconstitutional. “This case raises issues of exceptional importance because [a lower court’s] decision?.?.?.?leaves in place a state law that will significantly and unduly burden interstate commerce, provides a road map for other jurisdictions to inflict similar burdens on interstate commerce, and threatens to sow widespread confusion,” it says.
亚马逊在上诉状中辩称，这条法律违反了宪法。上诉状中写道：“本案引发了异常重要的问题。这是因为（一家较低级法院做出）的裁决……留下一条州法律，这条州法律会令州际商务承受极大且过度的负担，并导致其他辖区可能以同样方式令州际商务承受类似负担，结果有可能引起广泛困惑。”
Amazon declined to comment. It has previously said it has the lowest prices with or without tax. Mr Olson did not respond to a request for comment.
亚马逊拒绝置评。此前该公司曾表示，无论收税与否，该公司产品售价都是最低的。奥尔森没有答复置评请求。 |
|
/1 
