WASHINGTON, DC — On April 5th, the ACMA (American Catalog Mailers Association), the largest trade association representing the direct marketing/e-commerce/catalog industry, filed a complaint in New York State’s Supreme Court, contending that a recently-issued New York Department of Taxation and Finance regulation, 20 N.Y.C.R.R. § 1-2.10, wrongly and substantially expands the reach of taxes on out-of-state merchants with no business activities in the Empire State other than soliciting sales. The New York regulation effectively negates a well-established federal statute, Public Law 86-272, which protects against over-expansive state tax regulation.

“Like the California Franchise Tax Board before it, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance is overriding federal law by requiring companies with no people or equipment in New York to pay income taxes to New York without any representation,” said ACMA President & Executive Director Michael Plunkett. “Under the New York rule, this would occur even though members do not receive any of the legal and other benefits New York businesses receive from the state.”
The ACMA successfully defeated California’s efforts to efface Public Law 86-272. “And we will continue to protect our small and mid-sized members against the kind of overreach we’ve seen in California and New York,” Plunkett added. If the rule is enforced, ACMA members could be liable for income tax to multiple states for the same income. Not only that, the Department has announced it will apply this rule, published in December 2023, retroactively to January 2015. The substantial liabilities for tax, interest, and penalties created by this rule are untenable for smaller retailers — not to mention contrary to law.
Suit Warranted After NY Rejects Comments
Before the regulation was issued, the ACMA submitted comments to the Department explaining why the New York regulation conflicts with federal law. It pointed out that New York treats “activities on the Internet,” such as responding to customer emails or live chats, as if they occurred in New York. But the regulation has no regard to whether the responding business has any people, offices, or equipment in New York.
The ACMA had sought to avoid this litigation through comments to the Department during the regulatory process. The Department rejected the substance of these arguments and similar criticisms by others, which forced the ACMA’s hand. “So we filed suit to protect our members just as we did two years ago against the California Franchise Tax Board,” Plunkett said.
The ACMA is being represented by attorneys Martin Eisenstein, David Swetnam-Burland, and Nathaniel Bessey of the Maine law firm of Brann & Isaacson, which represented the ACMA in the successful California litigation and has represented the ACMA and the direct/e-com/catalog industry for years, along with co-counsel David Gise of Rivkin Radler LLP.
* * *

