Financial and Tax Law has been involved with litigation involving tax disputes. This typically occurs when Tax laws are amended and Amazon’s policies are directly impacted by the change. This occurred in v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, where Amazon argued that the amended tax law was unconstitutional.1 Other tax law disputes have arisen between Amazon and a government body because an amazon seller has violated current tax laws.

  1. LLC v. N.Y. State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 2009 NY Slip Op 29007, 23 Misc. 3d 418, 877 N.Y.S.2d 842 (Sup. Ct.).


  • LLC v. Lay, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113163, 73 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 501 (W.D. Wash. 2010). LLC, plaintiff, moved for summary judgment in this North Carolina tax lawsuit regarding Defendant Kenneth R. Lay where, defendant secretary of the North Carolina department of labor was requesting detailed information regarding sales by Amazon to North Carolina customers. LLC and the North Carolina Department of Revenue (“DOR”) have long disputed whether Amazon must collect and remit North Carolina sales and use taxes. The motion for summary judgment was granted because the DOR conceded that it had no legitimate need or use for having details as to North Carolina Amazon customers’ literary, music, and film purchases the court found that the request is too broad.

  • LLC v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 877 N.Y.S.2d 842, 23 Misc. 3d 418, 2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 28, 2009 NY Slip Op 29007, 241 N.Y.L.J. 12 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009).

Amazon filed suit alleging that the commission-agreement provision, “violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, … because it imposed tax collection obligations on out-of-state entities who have no substantial nexus with New York.” The court concluded that because Amazon failed to state a cause of action, the suit was dismissed.

  •, LLC v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 81 A.D.3d 183, 913 N.Y.S.2d 129, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7943, 2010 NY Slip Op 7823 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2010).

Amazon filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that the tax statute was unconstitutional. The court dismissed and Amazon appealed. The court concluded that they did not find the facial challenges to have merit, but found that further discovery was necessary before a determination can be rendered as to the as-applied Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause claims.

  • Breuer v. American Express Bank, FSB, 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2931, 2014 NY Slip Op 31698(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 30, 2014).

Plaintiff used a credit card to which he owed debt to make a purchase via Amazon. He returned the items and requested a check from Amazon rather than credit towards his debt. The court ruled in favor of AMEX and the funds were applied to his debt.

  • com, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 20 N.Y.3d 586, 987 N.E.2d 621, 965 N.Y.S.2d 61, 2013 N.Y. LEXIS 542, 2013 NY Slip Op 2102, 2013 WL 1234823 (N.Y. 2013). was a plaintiff in this case involving the New York State Department of Taxation. The issue here as whether the amended tax law at issue violated the constitution. The District Court found the amended law to be constitutional. The court of appeals found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the statute was facially unconstitutional under either the Commerce or the Due Process Clause, and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

  • Zaretsky v. Maxi-Aids, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84291, 2012 WL 2345181 (E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2012).

On October 28, 2011, plaintiffs filed a letter requesting additional time to file a completed RICO statement, which defendants had construed to be untimely objections to the Report. Since there is no clear error on the face of the Report, plaintiffs’ objections were overruled and the Report of Magistrate Judge Boyle was accepted in its entirety.