Amazon takes tax fight to Supreme Court Jeff Bezos's Amazon is taking a high-stakes legal battle to the US Supreme Court, hiring one of Washington's most prominent lawyers Ted Olson to fight the taxation of its shoppers in New York state. Amazon wants the court to review a case about the most incendiary political issue in American retail: the complaint by bricks-and-mortar stores that online rivals gain an unfair advantage because they do not have to charge sales tax. Underlining its readiness to fight, Amazon has hired Mr Olson, a conservative who this year persuaded the Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on same-sex marriage and in 2000 fought the Republican corner in the Bush v Gore case. 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. Lobbyists for Amazon rivals such as Walmart and Best Buy have long argued that its business is built on a tax "loophole." Under a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that predated ecommerce, online retailers are not required to collect sales in states where they do not have a physical presence. 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. The company's Supreme Court petition argues that 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. Amazon's fightback highlights the twin-track approach it has taken to tax, although that has become muddied as it has built more warehouses - quickening its delivery speeds but giving it a physical presence in more states. At state level it long opposed efforts to single it out for tax collection because it did not want to be put at a disadvantage to its tax-free online peers, but in the past two years it has struck deals with states including California to start collecting tax in return for support for new warehouses. Meanwhile, at the federal level the company is an enthusiastic supporter of a bill moving slowly through Congress that would create a "level playing field" by enabling all states to tax online shoppers while simplifying the collection process. Jason Brewer of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, a bricks-and-mortar lobby group that has pushed for online sales tax, said: "It is puzzling that Amazon would choose to collect sales taxes in states like California, Texas and Pennsylvania to name just a few while litigating in New York." New York may be a special case because of New York City. It is the US's biggest city with a population of 8m, and a sales tax of 8.875 per cent, but Amazon does not need warehouses in New York state to serve it, because it can use facilities in New Jersey, where it is planning to build at least one distribution centre. Amazon declined to comment, saying it does not discuss active litigation. It has previously said it has the lowest prices with or without tax. Mr Olson did not respond to a request for comment.